| Essentially, it doesn't. Congress has no say in how States operate their policing - it only has a say in how the Federal policing operates. But this hasn't stopped congress from overstepping their constitutional powers for the past 6 decades at least. The same goes for the office of the President, where _at least_ the past 10 Presidents (just off the top of my head) have deliberately acted outside their given powers on several occasions. The Judiciary is no better, but their transgressions are more spread out among a much, much, much larger flock of people. That said, whether individual States are allowed to use facial recognition is another question entirely. I don't think so, because it most likely violates constitutionally protected rights such as liberty. But IANAL. Probably one justification congress gives for allowing themselves to pass legislation like this is that it attaches them as prerequisites for special funding mechanisms. I don't think that makes it legal either, but - again - IANAL. I also haven't read the bill in question. But who's going to stop them? I believe the main problem in the US is the low voting turnout. You could say the low voting turnout is caused by centuries of bad politicians and lack of hope in the system, but then you're just arguing in circles (chicken/egg). The US elects people all the way down to the city level, and even Sheriffs, Judges, and AGs on the local/town/city level. There are elections each year in the US where turnout is below 1% of the eligible population, and it is never above 65% (even in Presidential elections, which is the one that affects you as an individual the least), if I remember correctly. Also note the disrepancy between vote tallies and exit polling in many elections in the US is routinely above 8-16% (the margin of error is 4%), which likely means many elections in the US are rigged. And note the over 1000 _convictions_ of criminal election fraud in the US since just the 80s. Not alleged, but prosecuted and convicted. Contrast this to elections in most European countries, where turnout is rarely below 60% at any level of government. At least in my country. I've not researched it thoroughly, but I have done a bit of reading on this some years ago. In the end, voting is the only mechanism you have for keeping politicians honest. And elected representatives are supposed to keep the rest of the bureaucracy and government honest. So if you don't vote, or keep voting for people who don't understand their own system of government - or worse, who don't care about the limitations put on them by the framework - then in the end, revolution is the only thing that can fix it. And you don't want revolution. You'll most likely be killed. At the extreme, those are your options; vote cleverly and wisely, or die. Many people choose a 3rd option; ignore politics and live their lives. What that does is it pushes death down the line to your children, or your childrens children, etc. /rant :-D |
Should this be read as "they do have constitutional power, but I don't like it"?
I mean if it is, in fact, unconstitutional, then surely at some point over "6 decades" the Supreme Court would have gotten liberal or conservative (whichever is necessary here) enough to have put a stop to this.