@feld @Zettour @lain @cjd they can't, but the amendments are scoped. there are some clauses such as speech written as *congress shall enact no law* and others directly state *shall not be infringed*.

a plain reading would lead one to believe some of those things apply to the fed, and others apply to all, though much handwavium has been done by judges to ignore whatever the point of the document was to begin with.
@icedquinn @feld @Zettour @lain @cjd The main problem with the US Constitution is that there's no explicit enforcement mechanism for anything written there. Sure, the US Supreme Court kinda sorta took those powers up on their own in Marbury v. Madison, but there's no constitutional provision granting anyone the power of constitutional review.

Frankly, if appointed judges with lifetime terms are making all of the important decisions in government, I don't see that as being materially different than a monarchy.

The Constitution does say that all cases brought under it will go to one supreme court, so there is a provision for it. But the thing with all documents is that they’re just paper if unenforced. Part of getting to the point where a document does get enforced, however, involves making the general population believe in that document.

@NEETzsche @feld @icedquinn @Zettour @lain @cjd Another thing "democracy" has in common with hereditary monarchy. It would be far more efficient to cut out all the bullshit and crown a King and then stick up a sign outside the castle saying "If you don't like it, bring yer guns!", because that's more or less what we have now minus the sign.
Elected legislature can write a law which says "that thing the SCOTUS said, well we explicitly say it's not like that" - and the SCOTUS *could* challenge it on constitutionality, but then the legislature can threaten to pack the court so they don't really win anything.

Conversely, the president can do something but he'll get dragged into court over it (happens constantly these days), and all courts answer to the SCOTUS.

So it is a balance.
Now there is something worse than a monarchy, that is a money printer which allows wealth to be transparently expropriated from the people to the government and creates such a powerful temptation to corrupt everything in sight.

You can also use it to silently expropriate wealth from people to other people via pork spending. Wealth redistribution is very realistic with fiat currencies.

Follow

@NEETzsche @feld @icedquinn @Zettour @caekislove @lain @cjd
Man, I agree so much.
It's not funny how many people have no idea, that our currency was created for the purpose of allowing silent wealth redistribution.

The smarter guys can laugh about it, but noone can say outloud, that we are sucking the entire economy dry just so few pigs can spend it on some million dollar social study about homosexuality of roasters.

Sign in to participate in the conversation
Game Liberty Mastodon

Mainly gaming/nerd instance for people who value free speech. Everyone is welcome.