Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
The Constitution is Not a Straight-Jacket
This is just a quick hit post. I saw a headline on yet another court action to stop the Trump administration from doing something that most people assume is within his administrative power to do. And the thought occurred to me that while the Constitution is famously not a “suicide pact” neither is it supposed to be a “straight-jacket” to limit what most people consider fairly common sense and typical government activity.
I am a limited-government proponent, so a court action stopping government action is not per se offensive to my constitutional sensibilities. But the form of law-fare that we have seen over the last two-plus years by progressives both on and off the bench is beyond frustrating. I have had it, and I hope the electorate will emphatically disapprove of this sort of obstruction by progressives in the next election cycle.
Discuss.
Published in General
I don’t understand that reference.
Generally I agree, but the problem here is that the Court found that the question was permissible under the statutes but that the decision to include it was invalid because it was based on Wrongthink.
Now, if the government bases a decision that effects individual rights on Wrongthink, I am generally ok with the courts stepping in. An example being a zoning decision being made because the zoning official lives next to the applicant and he likes the neighborhood just the way it is for personal reasons.
In this case, no one has an individualized right to have a particular question appear or not appear on the census. Consequently, the executive’s decision to include a question that is allowable under the statute should be left alone. Previous posters are right: this isn’t a limited government question but a question of who in the government can actually make a particular decision. In the case, the answer shouldn’t be the courts.
It is the antagonists from this science fiction series
Not a lawyer here, but it seems this is the court usurping executive powers properly belonging in the executive branch — and all because Orange Man Bad. Ridiculous. Yes, I hope the electorate puts down this #resistance.
Can someone explain to me why the state of New York had standing to challenge the Department of Commerce on a question on the census?
Literally no harm can come to the state by its residents being asked a question.
The question was found to be lawful, and the reason given for asking also lawful. Chief Justice Roberts decided that since he thought the Secretary of Commerce might have a reason other than the reason he stated in writing for the question, that it could not be asked.
Having now determined that the question is lawful, and is not capricious or arbitrary per the Supreme Court opinion, the Secretary should give a new reason for including it.
The question should be restored because the removal of the question by the previous administration was “arbitrary and capricious.”
In fact, it would have been the best course for the administration to have postured its entire proposal that way in the first place. “We are going to restore a citizen question to the census in order to correct the bizarre choice of the prior administration to omit a question commonly asked in before.”
Do we even know what Court decision the OP is about? It doesn’t say.
Everyone seems to be operating on the assumption that it was the Census question opinion. That or that was the direction the thread took anyway.
I usually think of the Constitution as a set of shackles on power, but sure — straight jacket works, too.
I favor both, plus we should RFID them and make them wear body cams.