The legislative branch [ie: the people writing the laws] are the "check" on... the people writing the unconstitutional laws?
The courts must have the authority to review these cases, anything else is completely incoherent.
> Not perfect, but allowing any member of the public to expose classified secrets via lawsuits would certainly be an attack vector for foreign adversaries.
If foreign adversaries are trying to overturn illegal domestic dragnet surveillance, maybe I should be paying my taxes to them.
In principle, the legislative branch represent the people and are checked by elections. In practice, there are party lines and the influence of far too much money; but, the logic is that legislators pushing unconstitutional laws would be voted out, or limited by the other legislators.
A lot of the foundational concepts in liberal democracies are justified on the assumption that citizens are engaged and conscientious electors (that is, intelligent and able to make up their own minds), and as a result unconstitutional legislation is a form of political suicide, or a real manifestation of democratic will which lead to constitutional amendments. It operates on the idea that doing x in that particular way "is not who we are". Because you can see that they are unconstitutional laws, means that you can vote and engage politically to stop or pull back that law.
Modern political realities have tested those assumptions. A two party deadlocked system, decline of civic education, and unchecked money in elections, are amongst many culprits.
Just finished last night a series of lectures on Thomas Jefferson[0] and I believe he felt the primary countermeasure to this problem was a limited federal government. In his time the federal government was dramatically smaller and the average person had nearly zero interaction with it during their lives. State and local governments can be moved away from, and this voting with your feet is an effective deterant to tyranny. The US long ago shrugged off the sort of republicanism Jefferson witnessed in his time and never really replaced it with anything else.
There is obviously debate, but Michael Lind argued that Jeffersonianism lost to Hamiltonianism, or the idea of a strong central government. It has been effective, America is a superpower. But it has also shaped the way Americans see themselves and the role (or threat) of government in their lives.
> Michael Lind argued that Jeffersonianism lost to Hamiltonianism, or the idea of a strong central government. It has been effective, America is a superpower.
But... that doesn't conflict with the ideas above.
>> I believe [Thomas Jefferson] felt the primary countermeasure to this problem was a limited federal government. In his time the federal government was dramatically smaller and the average person had nearly zero interaction with it during their lives.
Those descriptions, "limited" and "strong", are independent of each other. The government of Ming China was a superpower. It was strong and centralized in the Hamiltonian sense. It was also quite sharply limited in the Jeffersonian sense. How limited? When the dynasty fell, the conquering Qing had to deal with a Ming loyalist who just happened to control all of China's oceangoing shipping via his own private navy.
They eventually defeated him by evacuating the coast. The entire coast. The government had the power to do completely absurd things. But they didn't, as a rule, involve themselves with much.
Isn't a strong central government one of the reasons we only have 2 parties? Aiming to control the national government is the only reason to have a party that crosses state lines.
US had a two-party system pretty much since its inception - the two major parties changed over time, but the basic premise (that third party competitors are generally non-viable) holds.
The reason why US only has 2 parties is because its electoral system is first-past-the-post, and all legislative districts are single-member. The moment it switches to something like, say, MMP, I'm certain that the existing parties will disintegrate across factional lines.
I don't think so. Many other countries have strong central governments and more than two political parties. I think the way they make that work is that parties generally don't amass majority power, but they form coalitions in order to gain control.
My take on it is that our voting system is what leads to two parties. Something that allows people to vote their conscience rather than having to strategically vote for the lesser of two evils, like ranked-choice voting or approval voting, could allow more parties to win representation at the national level.
> voting with your feet is an effective deterant to tyranny.
Crazy things are happening in Texas the local government is politicizing federal elections and oppressing minority vote by making voting more difficult in areas where minorities live. I wonder are Texans going to vote with their feet?
I suspect Texas government does not care if democrats vote with their feet and move out of the state, that just means more power to those already in power.
Further what happens in Texas does not stay in Texas it affects vote-counting of federal elections as well. So people moving out of there does not really seem like a viable solution.
You don't feel the tyranny unless it's directed at you. I don't feel the tyranny of vaccination mandates because I got vaccinated, I presume you wouldn't feel the tyranny of Texas's abortion ban unless you're a pregnant woman.
Suppressing the vote of certain groups such as minorities making it more difficult for them to vote, is a move away from democracy. So where are you going if you move towards less democracy? You move towards the opposite of democracy - which is, tyranny.
How are voters being suppressed? That link was... lacking in detail. Yes it says voters rights are suppressed, but doesn't actually explain why or how.
Poor people move. The dust bowl migration is the largest example of it. Geographic mobility has declined, but the poorest are still the most likely to move.
I would expect them to be a large portion of those that do move, but as you can see, their mobility has collapsed, even during years of overall economic growth. I assume it has continued to go down beyond 2016.
I think population differences and pretty much all land having been settled/allocated now compared to the Dust Bowl period make them incomparable.
I do not know what your comment is exactly meant to imply, but the biggest hurdle in moving is cost of housing, which usually requires proof of income to secure.
When neighboring states held slaves, their fellow Americans risked their own lives, reputation and property, in order to take as many as those slaves as possible into the northern states where they would be free. If some tyrannical bastard, in lets say New Jersey, was causing your fellow man harm, would you not join with me in attempting to free them?
It is by no means a perfect system, but I think a release value like it would be helpful in diverse times like these.
>>the legislative branch represent the people and are checked by elections
In order for a "check" to be valid, the "check" has to have full knowledge of the thing they are checking..
Further the "people" are not the check to the Legislature, the Court is. That is how our system it setup
The people was to only be a "check" for their own congressman in the house, and since not even the full house is able to get classified briefing just a select few, and they can not tell anyone about what happens there, it is literally impossible for the "people" to be considered the check in that system
The executive branch, particularly in the contemporary U.S., largely decides what policy outcome they would like first. Then they go digging for an existing statute or 3 letter agency they can use to implement it.
The legislative branch is at fault here for punting on their governing responsibilities. But it is true that via their oversight committees, they have constrained the actions of the executive, via new laws, based on classified intel.
Foreign adversaries have no interest in domestic surveillance. There are many other things they'd like to get their hands on via discovery, though.
This is possible via emigration. The highest profile adversaries of the US don't have a better track record when it comes to domestic surveillance however.
The check against bad laws is voting public. The check against misuse of a dragnet law by the executive is the legislative branch and not the court - that’s what the OP seems to be saying. Courts can’t keep state secrets by design.
The courts must have the authority to review these cases, anything else is completely incoherent.
> Not perfect, but allowing any member of the public to expose classified secrets via lawsuits would certainly be an attack vector for foreign adversaries.
If foreign adversaries are trying to overturn illegal domestic dragnet surveillance, maybe I should be paying my taxes to them.