h a l f b a k e r yThis product is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any disease.
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
Lately, I've been thinking of a new law or constitutional
amendment called "Oath Breaker's Bar From Office". Any
legislator that voted in favor of a law subsequently found to be
unconstitutional would be barred from office for life effective
the date of the unconstitutional law's passage, obliged
to
disgorge to the treasury all pay and benefits rendered unto him
afterward, and his votes from that date forward invalidated and
void. Sponsors and co-sponsors would serve 10 years in prison in
addition to all the disabilities above.
No more of this "You have to vote for it in order to find out
what's in it." In fact they might be a little more careful of what
they propose and vote for in those 2000-page bills.
Why do I think this would be a useful addendum to our
Republic?:
1. I am tired of the legislature dreaming up snares and traps to
fine and imprison the citizenry.
2. Those bastards took an oath:
5 U.S. Code § 3331. Oath of office
An individual, except the President, elected or appointed to an
office of honor or profit in the civil service or uniformed
services, shall take the following oath:
“I, AB, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and
defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies,
foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance
to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any
mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well
and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am
about to enter. So help me God.”
Obviously, if you voted for an unconstitutional law, you have
violated your oath of office. "Break a deal, face the wheel."
Please log in.
If you're not logged in,
you can see what this page
looks like, but you will
not be able to add anything.
Destination URL.
E.g., https://www.coffee.com/
Description (displayed with the short name and URL.)
|
| |
Wait a minute. I am not a lawyer, nor an American, so please
correct me if I have my facts wrong here, but ... |
|
| |
I get the impression that the de facto meaning of the US
Constitution depends at the margin on the composition of the
Supreme Court. |
|
| |
So, here's how it plays out: |
|
| |
1. Party A gains a majority in congress, and starts passing some
laws. These laws are consistent with their interpretation of the
constitution at that time. |
|
| |
2. Party B wins the presidency. |
|
| |
4. Party B appoints one of their judges. |
|
| |
5. Party B begins a constitutional challenge to one of Party A's
laws. |
|
| |
6. A political massacre of Party A's legislators ensues - party is
disgraced, much of its leadership jailed. |
|
| |
7. Party B takes control of congress, starts passing laws
reflecting *their* understanding of the constitution. |
|
| |
The selective pressure of this environment would tend to favour
the advancement of independently wealthy reckless narcissists. |
|
| |
I understand that you want your politicians to take their
responsibilities more seriously, but I suggest that what you most
need to promote in those politicians is a healthy fear of the
voters, to which due respect for the Supreme Court would be
ancillary. How might you promote that? Well, you could
increase political competition by lowering financial barriers to
entry, and/or changing the voting system. But that's another
story. |
|
| |