|
|
|
|
|
by YoureWrong
3944 days ago
|
|
> 'It is entirely possible that, even if plaintiffs are granted discovery, the government may refuse to provide information (if any exists) that would further plaintiffs’ case. Plaintiffs’ claims may well founder in that event. But such is the nature of the government’s privileged control over certain classes of information. Plaintiffs must realize that secrecy is yet another form of regulation, prescribing not “what the citizen may do” but instead "what the citizen may know."' If secrecy is another form of regulation, then any such regulations must be subservient to the fact that a citizen is entitled to due process and to protection against their affects being seized. This means that the government asserting state secret to block the judicial review of a case about them failing to uphold the constitution is a breach of the constitution, and subservient regulations like state secrecy must be set aside to uphold constitutional obligations. Or at least, that's what my lawyer would probably say on appeal. |
|