2 ms·

Yes. While you can perhaps forgive any single individual for thinking a law might not violate the Constitution when it actually does, the deterrent effect shou

by bmelton 12y ago

Yes. While you can perhaps forgive any single individual for thinking a law might not violate the Constitution when it actually does, the deterrent effect should be that laws of questionable constitutionality should deter anyone who suspects such unconstitutionality that it would bar them from voting on it. If the law doesn't get enough votes to be passed, then nobody gets in trouble. I honestly don't know that it solves the problem of laws living up to the letter of the Constitution while failing to live up to the spirit, but it'd be a start.

Karunamon 12y ago
I love this idea, but I fear it's unworkable in practice. In the first place, it's lawmakers at the end of the day who have to approve this thing (even if you manage to swing a constitutional convention, and that's scary all on its own) - and I think you'd be hard pressed to get the requisite number of someones to pass a law that can only make their own lives worse. It would require a revolution, basically - the entrenched system (and my apologies for that eye-rolling cliché) would never allow it. It would take the same fresh look and honest forward thinking that led to the constitution's drafting in the first place
- bmelton 12y ago
  A Constitution with zero teeth is sure to be perpetually shat upon, which is our current reality. That said, I agree that it's unworkable, for exactly the reasons you stated. Beyond that, the ship has sailed. With our current interpretations of the Constitution, there's hardly any law that could be presumed unconstitutional by any common man. Any such fix would require either a revolution or a time machine.
  - anonbanker 12y ago
    "Mr. President," one aide in the meeting said. "There is a valid case that the provisions in this law undermine the Constitution." "Stop throwing the Constitution in my face," Bush screamed back. "It's just a goddamned piece of paper!"[1] 1. http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/12/11/171129/-Bush-on-the-Constitution-quot-just-a-goddamned-piece-of-paper-quot http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/12/11/171129/-Bush-on-the...

by bmelton 12y ago

Karunamon 12y ago

I love this idea, but I fear it's unworkable in practice. In the first place, it's lawmakers at the end of the day who have to approve this thing (even if you manage to swing a constitutional convention, and that's scary all on its own) - and I think you'd be hard pressed to get the requisite number of someones to pass a law that can only make their own lives worse. It would require a revolution, basically - the entrenched system (and my apologies for that eye-rolling cliché) would never allow it. It would take the same fresh look and honest forward thinking that led to the constitution's drafting in the first place

bmelton 12y ago
A Constitution with zero teeth is sure to be perpetually shat upon, which is our current reality. That said, I agree that it's unworkable, for exactly the reasons you stated. Beyond that, the ship has sailed. With our current interpretations of the Constitution, there's hardly any law that could be presumed unconstitutional by any common man. Any such fix would require either a revolution or a time machine.
- anonbanker 12y ago
  "Mr. President," one aide in the meeting said. "There is a valid case that the provisions in this law undermine the Constitution." "Stop throwing the Constitution in my face," Bush screamed back. "It's just a goddamned piece of paper!"[1] 1. http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/12/11/171129/-Bush-on-the-Constitution-quot-just-a-goddamned-piece-of-paper-quot http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/12/11/171129/-Bush-on-the...