Constitutionality Of NSA Programs - They Are Constitutional

[Patranus]

The fact of the matter is that the government can do whatever it wants until the courts rule that someone is unconstitutional and in many cases don't rule on the constitutionality of something rather precedent set in previous cases.

the citizen or general electorate has zero authority what is and is not constitutional.

Weather you agree with it or not, that is the position government has taken. They don't have to provide what constitutional authority grants them the ability to do something rather government is entitled to do what it wants when it wants until the Supreme Court proves otherwise.

 

[Doppel]

No government in the US can do anything it wants until specifically struck down by SCOTUS, it's a nutty argument to be sure. The vast majority of new laws are never vetted by SCOTUS. That is the point of the constitution: to give a decent frame work telling us beforehand what is and isn't legal.

If I take your argument, and I've seen it before on the forum, it would be legal for the US government to round up everybody who's bald and put them in a labor camp, where they will work until they die, and it's fine until SCOTUS says it's not. You don't need to be a supreme justice to know the legality of such a thing.

 

[lagokc]

What we need is some sort of punishment for politicians that repeatedly pass legislation that they should know is unconstitutional. Like, I dunno, for example not winning reelections.

Never mind, that would require voters to care.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Incorrect. Until it is ruled upon a law has no constitional status.

 

[Patranus]

If I take your argument, and I've seen it before on the forum, it would be legal for the US government to round up everybody who's bald and put them in a labor camp, where they will work until they die, and it's fine until SCOTUS says it's not. You don't need to be a supreme justice to know the legality of such a thing.

Like the Japanese during WW2?

Anyways, I am not saying that I agree with it but it is the way the government is currently operating.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Like the Japanese during WW2?

Anyways, I am not saying that I agree with it but it is the way the government is currently operating.

The government has of convenience operated under a principle of presumed correctness. Legislatures do whatever they wish without hindrence, and the quality or validity of their work is legally assumed to be proper unless successfully challenged. It should be obvious that there are both advantages and disadvantages to this approach. The alternative would be to have some proactive judicial review which also has good and bad points. Considering the volume of poorly thought out product I'm leaning towards the latter. I'd rather see less and better than more and worse. Never happen but I'd like to see it.

 

[Fenixgoon]

just because something is not declared unconstitutional by SCOTUS doesn't mean it's not. things that are obviously unconstitutional don't get passed, warantless wiretapping and spying on citizens excepted since it's in the name of "national security"

congress could just as easily try and ban all firearms. they won't, because it's obviously not constitutional.

 

[Anarchist420]

I've always been of the belief that you can't have rule of law since the Constitution itself is unconstitutional.

It was ratified by threats of violence and deception for fuck's sake!

 

[shabby]

it would be legal for the US government to round up everybody who's bald and put them in a labor camp

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_9066
Not labor camp but close enough, its easier for the us government to be sued and then apologize than ask for permission.

 

[Genx87]

The fact of the matter is that the government can do whatever it wants until the courts rule that someone is unconstitutional and in many cases don't rule on the constitutionality of something rather precedent set in previous cases.

the citizen or general electorate has zero authority what is and is not constitutional.

Weather you agree with it or not, that is the position government has taken. They don't have to provide what constitutional authority grants them the ability to do something rather government is entitled to do what it wants when it wants until the Supreme Court proves otherwise.

You are kidding us right? Of course they do if they want to remain legitimate. As well many of these programs never get the constitutionality sniff test because the DoJ gets cases tossed out of court due to being matters of national security and classified information.

 

[Doppel]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_9066
Not labor camp but close enough, its easier for the us government to be sued and then apologize than ask for permission.

That was shameful and you know what? Proles would support it today, guaranteed. The masses live in petrifying fear of monsters under their beds. There is no way that jibed with th constitution no matter the argument.