Specificity plus brevity plus non-delegation add up to a limit on the load of law that we are subjected to. It's the bias toward freedom of individual action of classical liberalism. You are entirely correct that this kind of limitation would be crippling to a software project. Gorsuch just doesn't think that the state should have that degree of detailed control.
The ambiguity, of course shifts the power to the courts to resolve.
Something to keep in mind when thinking about Chevron.
Consider the 2nd Amendment. I'm not a gun nut, and in the abstract don't care much if gun ownership was banned. However, that would require simply ignoring the 2nd Amendment. If the 2nd can be ignored, ignoring the rest cannot be far behind.
When you let a tiger into your house to get rid of the dog, the tiger won't stop there.
A constitution is not a sacred text but a very practical one. The constitution of my country went trough five major rewrites and was amended approximately a dozen of times since the last rewrite and somehow we are still a liberal free country.
The idea that touching it in any way or form is a slippery slop leading to less rights is a fallacy.
If an amendment is passed to change the 2nd amendment, that’s one thing.
But not doing that, and just banning private gun ownership (or whatever law one might want to pass that goes against the second amendment) anyway, would be a rather different thing.
The Second Ammendment could be nullified with a new Amendment that undoes the Second, but this isn't seriously entertained by gun control activists in America because it would be extremely unpopular so there's no way they could pull it off. Instead, they intend to simply ignore the law.
Anyway I’m not American. The quality or lack thereof of the US political system doesn’t really affect me. Would appreciate the US getting its act together when it comes to GHG emission however because we share the same planet.
That complaint isn't addressed by empowering political appointees from the executive to write laws the courts aren't allowed to challenge. Least of all, laws which violate he Bill of Rights!
Beyond that, the states themselves can petition for a constitutional convention. 2/3s of the state legislatures would be all it takes to kick that process off, no senate "representativity" required (unless I suppose the senate wanted to argue that "congress shall call a convention" does not obligate congress to do so. But I suspect that's a constitutional crisis even the most obstructionist senators would be reluctant to take on in the face of 2/3s of the states actually petitioning congress.
Yes, very much so. That’s part of why the UN is not taken very seriously and why the security council exists.
> The senate has plenty of representativity.
Debatable. It was certainly fit for purpose when it was set in place. Is it appropriate nowadays? Probably not, especially when you consider how it impacts the electoral college.
I tend to find the USA political system a bit dubious (I think the same of the one of my own country to be clear and I generally have a poor opinion of presidential systems anyway). Still, the country has been mostly stable until now so I guess it’s fit for purpose.
It's amazing the US has lasted as long as it has, although I've lived long enough to see a significant erosion of rights.
For example, civil asset forfeiture.
"Despite the Supreme Court’s rulings in Heller and McDonald, many constitutional historians disagreed with the court that the Second Amendment protected an individual right to “keep and bear Arms” for the purpose of self-defense in the home. Indeed, for more than two centuries there had been a consensus among judges as well as scholars that the Second Amendment guaranteed only the right of individuals to defend their liberties by participating in a state militia. However, by the late 20th century the “self-defense” interpretation of the amendment had been adopted by a significant minority of judges. The self-defense view also seemed to be taken for granted by large segments of the American public, especially those who consistently opposed gun control."
"A well educated electorate, being necessary to the proper functioning of a democratic state, the right of the people to keep and read books, shall not be infringed."
A reading of the 2nd amendment that doesn't see it as an individual right means we must read the forgoing as protecting the right to keep and read books only for the class of people that are eligible to vote, and only in the service of educating them. And realistically, if you put that text on a multiple choice SAT with the question "Who has the right to keep and read books?" I don't think you're going to get many people answering "only people eligible to vote".
Beyond that, to read the 2nd amendment as not protecting an individual right would also require an interpretation of a right of "the people" to mean something other than every other reading of "the people" throughout the rest of the document:
* The right of "the people" to peaceably assemble as outlined in the first amendment is not limited to members of religious orders or members of "the press".
* The right of "the people" to be "secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects" is certainly not limited to some government defined collection of people who only have that right while they are collectively acting.
* The "person" whose rights are protected by the fifth amendment has been time and again ruled to be an individual.
* The tenth amendment clearly distinguishes between the federal government, the states and "the people". If "the people" are supposed to be the militia, how then are they distinct from the federal government or the state?
* The fourteenth amendment refers to "persons" and their privileges, immunities, life, liberties and property. But how could the state infringe on the rights of those people if the people are the militia and the militia is an arm of the state?
It seems strange that in a collection of amendments specifically in place to outline some hard limits on government power and particularly with respect to individuals under that government, that one and only one of those limits was to restrict the government from limiting another arm of the government, but in terms that referred to individuals in every other case it was used.
Decentralized, peer-to-peer systems tend to be pretty robust. Even if a few states "fail" the others will be fine.
2)If you move it to the state-level how does that simplify the statutes?
Imagine one day we invent portable teleporters. They would immediately be used for crime once they are available on the market although there would certainly be plenty of legal uses. That sounds like something the federal government should regulate, yes? You simply can't leave that up to the states because everyone is going to have a different standard for who can own one such that all you would need to do is travel to the least regulated state, buy a teleporter, and teleport back home. Having 50 different laws saying who can and can't own one would simply not be feasible based on how easy people can travel across the country. The federal government would need to establish regulations but only if the constitution says they can. Congress in 2024 would not have any notion that those could exist and would likely not explicitly give the federal government the power to regular them.
Which is sort of the point of the structure of the US government. A government of a United collection of States, whose power is derived not from holy writ or mandate but from the people of those states granting powers to that government. If they don't grant the power, the government can't do it.
>You simply can't leave that up to the states because everyone is going to have a different standard for who can own one such that all you would need to do is travel to the least regulated state, buy a teleporter, and teleport back home. Having 50 different laws saying who can and can't own one would simply not be feasible based on how easy people can travel across the country.
And yet we do this all the time. Cars and their ownership are regulated on a per-state level, marijuana (ironically because the federal government has overstepped too far and the states and their people fought back) is legal or not in various forms on a per state level (and this as I note, despite being federally illegal). Guns, knives and indeed pepper spray are similarly regulated on a state by state basis. As are radar detectors. So much of people's day to day lives are regulated at the state levels and it works plenty fine most of the time. This need for everything to be uniform across the country is tempting, but like all things in life is full of trade offs. One shouldn't have to cast their memory too far back in time to imagine what it might be like for a federal administration run amok to have absolute authority over too many things.
(And a supreme court that will weigh in when they desire)
Federal laws are great because they can cover the majority of that stuff that applies to every state and meaning that you only have to worry about a few small changes (if any) from state to state. Federal law is more stable and can even override state laws. That's so much easier.
If every business only had the reach of a local corner grocery store, maybe state laws would be ideal, but for a national or international business the less you have to worry about local laws the better.
This is actually quite typical. Most areas of the law are not within exclusive federal preemption, so companies do have to navigate the laws of 51 jurisdictions (not counting cities and counties which may also have applicable laws) if they want to operate nationwide.
It depends on the size of the overall system. The smaller the system the easier this is to achieve.
> many lawmakers are happy to outsource the coding to special interests.
In and of itself, this is actually a good thing, as you point out:
> You also wouldn’t expect the PMs to be responsible for the implementation.
So what you really want is two third parties. One to write. The other to review. Which, we have, in that the President is entitled to veto any legislation that hasn't passed with a super majority.
I think what you would want are non-bribed congressmen writing laws for the good of the people and not to increase the wealth and power of a select few at the people's expense, while those laws are being informed/reviewed by experts who don't have a conflict of interest (which should include not accepting money/favors from people who do) and then having a President (who should also not be accepting bribes) able to veto laws.
Having corporations and lobbyists hired by industry write laws that favor them to the detriment of everyone else, then getting those same laws passed thanks to a series of dark money bribes and promises, then having a similarly bribed president rubber stamp those laws is what brought us to where we are right now.
If our current system is working as intended, then the system has failed by design and needs adjusting. If it isn't working as intended and private corporations were never supposed to be able to have this level of influence over government or have the ability to cause harm to the degree that they have, then the system still needs adjusting to correct the situation.
How do you create this rather mythical class of individual? Wouldn't the time taken to gain the expertise also subject them to bias from the companies they worked for? We can put time limits on the "revolving door" but you're essentially building a policy that actually relies on it.
> lobbyists hired by industry
When an industry is not monopolized and has healthy competition why would you expect the industry, possibly represented by a trade group, to be incapable of writing good long term policy? How do you account for the many times where this has actually happened and continues to happen?
There is a monopolization problem in many industries. This gives a single corporate entity massive power. Perhaps more power than the federal government itself. Isn't this what "too big to fail" or "too big to disband" represents? Hasn't it been shown that actual legislation is meaningless to these entities already?
> is what brought us to where we are right now.
Where did you think we were before?
> then the system still needs adjusting to correct the situation.
If laws aren't being enforced already how is modifying the system for writing them possibly going to solve your apparent complaints?
If you've known many employees you'll know that having worked for a company doesn't always instill undying devotion to that company or require placing the company's interests above all over concerns. I'm also not convinced that all experts need to have actively worked directly for the companies being regulated either.
> why would you expect the industry, possibly represented by a trade group, to be incapable of writing good long term policy?
I don't, but I do expect them to write policy that benefits them regardless of who else or how many others are hurt in the process. Corporations are amoral monsters that care only about profit. They'll happily create legislation that allows them to pollute the Earth, poison entire communities, hinder existing competitors while limiting the ability of would-be competitors to become a threat, and limit our ability to hold them meaningfully accountable for the harms they cause. In some instantiates legislation can further their selfish goals while, even if only by coincidence, also align with the general public's interest. Their legislation might also not pass as written, and through negotiation to get them what they want a representative might concede to modifications that give the people something they need as well. Industry doesn't write legalization for altruistic reasons and they certainly don't write it because they want to get or stay elected.
> Hasn't it been shown that actual legislation is meaningless to these entities already?
It shows that our current legislation hasn't been written with the intent to constrain them. We know from experience that strong regulation with teeth can do a lot of good, but industry spends massive amounts of money bribing lawmakers to throw out effective laws and regulation so that they can do whatever they want without consequence.
> Where did you think we were before?
I think that before corporations weren't spending billions every year in lobbying. I think that before Citizens United and Super PACs corporations weren't able to freely funnel unlimited amounts of money into the pockets of congressmen and presidents. Before we were in a nation that didn't grant nearly as many rights and privileges to corporations, didn't consider them people, and didn't consider money to be speech. Labor unions were much much stronger and public-interest groups had a greater influence on politicians because their voices weren't drowned out by the floods of money corporations were able to spend.
> If laws aren't being enforced already how is modifying the system for writing them possibly going to solve your apparent complaints?
Laws are being enforced, but laws constraining industry have been made limited, weak, and ineffectual following more than a century of coordinated efforts by corporations to corrupt our political system, overturn laws and regulations that limit their profits and power, and weaken the ability for anyone to hold them accountable. By modifying our system for writing laws in ways that seek to minimize corruption and limit the ability for corporations to pass self-serving policy, reforms to undo much of the damage they've caused our political system become possible. I do not believe that it is impossible to limit the outsized and still growing influence of corporations on our laws and political system. I think that we can still fight against corruption in politics, but we can't do that while the very cause of that corruption is writing our nation's policy and filling the pockets of politicians with limitless cash.
How do you square a legislative failure to be specific with Gorsuch lambasting the length of most modern laws?
Recent court opinions seem to take the stance that congress hasn’t legislated thoroughly and accurately, and now have crippled the chevron doctrine saying it should be in their hands.
There’s parallels here with software development, I think. It’s easy to come up with a basic system that works as intended but is not robust to failure. It’s extremely hard to near impossible to be both succinct, correct, and robust to failure. You also wouldn’t expect the PMs to be responsible for the implementation.
Of course, many lawmakers are happy to outsource the coding to special interests.