6 ms·

I completely disagree. Not everything can be included in the Constitution. We have ordinary laws to address things like this.

by db48x 9d ago

Avicebron 9d ago
Never once tried to argue that it should be included in the Constitution. I suppose one of those "other laws" will cover when the government deliberately gives people lead poisoning? I wonder why they didn't go with that one...
- db48x 9d ago
  You literally just did.
- Dylan16807 9d ago
  You said it was absurd for the judge to rule it wasn't in the constitution, and advocated for a "spirit of the law" court. If that court's going to find any differently, don't they need to say it's part of the spirit of the constitution? That counts as including.
anigbrowl 9d ago
And then entities litigate to have those laws overturned on highly abstract theoretical grounds, alleging that they violate the framers' intent in drafting the Constitution, or exceed enumerated powers or whatever.
eclipticplane 9d ago
What ordinary law requires officials to issue truthful statements? We're living in the era of unrestrained executive power.
- mullingitover 9d ago
  > What ordinary law requires officials to issue truthful statements? There are plenty of laws on the books against malfeasance in office. They go back to the freaking Code of Hammurabi. Proscriptions against "high crimes and misdemeanors" covers exactly this type of governance that willfully (or even negligently) brings harm. Knowingly deceiving to the public in a way that causes them harm should be a no-brainer case for these laws. This judgment absolving the government is frankly an indictment of the judicial system.
  - db48x 9d ago
    While I agree with most of that, this judgement does not absolve the government of anything. As the judgement explicitly states, the plaintiffs do still have legal claims against their local government even though they do not have a Constitutional claim.
- rbanffy 9d ago
  > unrestrained executive power. I don’t think any of the branches have adequate restraints at this point.

I completely disagree. Not everything can be included in the Constitution. We have ordinary laws to address things like this.

by db48x 9d ago

I completely disagree. Not everything can be included in the Constitution. We have ordinary laws to address things like this.

Avicebron 9d ago

Never once tried to argue that it should be included in the Constitution. I suppose one of those "other laws" will cover when the government deliberately gives people lead poisoning? I wonder why they didn't go with that one...

db48x 9d ago
You literally just did.
Dylan16807 9d ago
You said it was absurd for the judge to rule it wasn't in the constitution, and advocated for a "spirit of the law" court. If that court's going to find any differently, don't they need to say it's part of the spirit of the constitution? That counts as including.

anigbrowl 9d ago

And then entities litigate to have those laws overturned on highly abstract theoretical grounds, alleging that they violate the framers' intent in drafting the Constitution, or exceed enumerated powers or whatever.

eclipticplane 9d ago

What ordinary law requires officials to issue truthful statements? We're living in the era of unrestrained executive power.

mullingitover 9d ago
> What ordinary law requires officials to issue truthful statements? There are plenty of laws on the books against malfeasance in office. They go back to the freaking Code of Hammurabi. Proscriptions against "high crimes and misdemeanors" covers exactly this type of governance that willfully (or even negligently) brings harm. Knowingly deceiving to the public in a way that causes them harm should be a no-brainer case for these laws. This judgment absolving the government is frankly an indictment of the judicial system.
- db48x 9d ago
  While I agree with most of that, this judgement does not absolve the government of anything. As the judgement explicitly states, the plaintiffs do still have legal claims against their local government even though they do not have a Constitutional claim.
rbanffy 9d ago
> unrestrained executive power. I don’t think any of the branches have adequate restraints at this point.