[BirAdam]

I feel like this was a mistake: “must be limited to those demonstrably necessary and narrowly tailored to fulfill a compelling government interest in public health or safety”

So, public health or safety, in the hands of a tyrant how broad can that get? I imagine that by enshrining this in law, Montana has accidentally given a future leader the ability to confiscate all computing technology.

[noir_lord]

In the hands of a tyrant all laws can be arbitrary/ignored because that is a key part of what makes them a tyrant.

Almost every part of government is in isolation a single point of failure to someone with a tyrannical streak, it's why most democracies end up with multiple houses/bodies and courts - supposed to act as checks and balances.

So this law wouldn't alter the outcome in the slightest.

[miki123211]

> In the hands of a tyrant all laws can be arbitrary/ignored because that is a key part of what makes them a tyrant.

But that is not how tyrants actually operate, at least most of the time.

The most tyrannical country possible would be a "free democratic union of independent people's republics". Democracy has been so successful that most tyrannies operate under its veneer. This is in stark contrast to how monarchies have operated historically.

The trick isn't to ignore laws, but to make them so broad, meaningless and impossible to follow that you have to commit crimes to survive. You can then be selective in which of these crimes you choose to prosecute.

You don't charge the human rights activist for the human rights activism. You charge them with engaging in illegal speculation for the food they bought on the black market, even though that was the only way to avoid starvation, and everybody else did it too. In the worst case scenario, you charge them with "endangering national peace", "spreading misinformation" or "delivering correspondence without possessing a government license to do so" (for giving out pamflets).

"must be limited to those demonstrably necessary and narrowly tailored to fulfill a compelling government interest" is exactly the shenanigans tyrants love. You can get away with absolutely anything with a law like that.

[MangoToupe]

> In the hands of a tyrant all laws can be arbitrary/ignored because that is a key part of what makes them a tyrant.

Sure, but legislators should generally avoid explicitly building the on-ramp to such behavior.

[raw_anon_1111]

How has that been working in the US where both the legislation branch and judicial branch have willingly given their authority to the executive branch?

[noir_lord]

You would think the fact that I put "supposed to act as checks and balances." in my post would answer that but apparently not.

[hansvm]

> So this law wouldn't alter the outcome in the slightest.

If an unchecked tyrant exists, do they really need the paper-thin facade provided by manhandling the English language to pretend that some law supports their actions?

[vlovich123]

Yes because tyrants still value the symbolism of pretext.

[XorNot]

This is just making a slippery slope fallacy by circuitous means.

The point of all laws and thus the courts is that each new action provides an opportunity to debate and decide on whether an action is lawful, and thus determine whether it should proceed.

You are arguing that all such decisions would always be decided in favor of the tyrant because they're a tyrant ala a slippery slope: the law exists, all things will be declared lawful, ergo all things are allowed with no further challenge.

This can certainly be true, but it doesn't naturally follow.

[vlovich123]

Show me a tyrant that doesn’t have rules and laws. Turkey, Saudia Arabia, Iran, China, North Korea, Sadam Hussein’s Iraq, and Russia still have law creating and law enforcing bodies. A good chunk of those countries even hold elections.

Hell, even in medieval England the king didn’t have absolute authority and had to worry about political alliances abcs political support of the other nobles.

You should go read the dictator’s handbook. Think about it from the perspective is the tyrant - there’s one of you. How do you establish control over groups of other people? Just ordering people around doesn’t work. You need to create a power base. You can go broad and give riches back to the people or narrow and give riches to people who have power and influence already. Dictator’s generally go the latter route because you’re not at the whim of changes in political mood and individual problems can be managed easily. But you still need to tap into symbolism and other institutions to lend yourself legitimacy to avoid uprisings.

[xorcist]

It sounds like you completely agree with the comment you replied to?

[exe34]

in that case they can just vote in whatever law they want or they can hold starving kids hostage and forbid anybody from helping - I don't think this law in particular will make any of it worse.

[rolph]

give a man a shovel, and a treasure map, but dont tell him he is digging his own grave.

[SV_BubbleTime]

Yes. That has been a problem. Several states outright ignored the scotus Bruen decision.

[Retric]

Yea a Supreme Court ruling 110 years after a law passed only for them to reverse course 2 years later. Surely that’s based on the constitution and nothing else.

[SV_BubbleTime]

Is your argument that you should only listen to Supreme Court judgments that you agree with?

Or is it that they have some settling in time before you need to actually pay attention to them?

[hamdingers]

How would you expect checks and balances to work when a single party controls all the branches? Is this a serious comment?

[raw_anon_1111]

It seems strange (or maybe you are just young) that you think this. But both Democratic and Republican controlled Congresses have fought against excesses of their own President. The same is true for the Supreme Court in the past ruling against an administration of its own party.

There was an entire coalition of “Blue Dog Democrats” that came from red states as recently as 30 years ago.

Or did you really forget that even in Trumps first term that Republicans like McCain voted against Trump snd 10 voted to impeach him?

[hamdingers]

The party is MAGA and that party is pro-dictatorship. The behavior of republicans decades ago is irrelevant, and it's obvious that MAGA has learned lessons from Tumps first term.

Perhaps it's you who haven't been paying attention? I find older people have a lot of unfounded faith in these failing institutions, but if you try to keep up you'll see this isn't the same America you grew up in.

[raw_anon_1111]

Yes way back in 2016-2020 when dinosaurs ruled the earth.

[gosub100]

> The party is MAGA and that party is pro-dictatorship.

remember the "sanctuary city" thing? That kind of blind obeisance to the tribe and defiance to the federal government smells awfully like what MAGA does today.But let me guess: it's okay when your tribe does it?

[singron]

This is essentially the "strict scrutiny" standard, which governments have to achieve in order to violate your strongest constitutional rights (e.g. 1A). If you don't spell it out, then it might be delegated to a lower standard like "rational basis".

[simplulo]

Correct.

[mpalmer]

This is how laws are written. A court would determine whether the state is abusing or violating this public safety carve-out.

[zbrozek]

And this exact method is how we got minimum lot sizes, setbacks, FAR, and a burgeoning affordability and homelessness crisis. It's a blank check.

[mpalmer]

Yes, the ability to litigate is key. Only a few can afford it.

[shortrounddev2]

Seems like a lazy way to write a law. Basically just gives any governor whose party controls the supreme court a blank check. The law should qualify what public safety means

[kingkawn]

You want discretion for judges so that they can respond to the problems of their era wisely rather than rigidly applying the ideas of another time without nuance

[jfengel]

Unless those judges themselves have a fondness for an imaginary "great" time, and will apply their reasoning in a way that just happens to fit their ideology.

Law is either rigorous or it's not. When I'm told that the law is against me but gosh darn it the law is the law, I grow resentful of the "discretion" reserved for some but not others.

[kingkawn]

There’s no eliminating humans from human civilization. No risk no fun.

[jfengel]

What drives me nuts is the way lawyers (of all stripes) keep praising "legal reasoning". None of it strikes me as even vaguely rigorous.

I'm not a lawyer so I could well be completely off base here. But if my perception is correct, I would much rather they admit that it's fundamentally up to someone's gut feeling. That's more honest than telling me that a bit of reasoning is airtight when it's not.

[lanyard-textile]

The true honesty is that judges may rule however they please, regardless of the reasoning. In many cases they require their intuition to guide them. In that sense, it is already up to their gut feeling.

At some point someone needs to weigh the facts, and they are given great discretion to do so. It is generally a good thing, because we have multiple layers of appeal to prevent obviously horrible outcomes.

So this legislation, like all legislation, provides guidance for the good faith judge to help weigh the facts. There is no guidance that will prevent a bad faith judge from ruling badly: You do not need a clause about public safety to get the ruling you want, but there is an argument that your ruling may perhaps be less scrutinized.

There’s a reason an attorney’s answer is always “it depends” :) No legislation is truly airtight from abuse.

[DrewADesign]

A judge can rule however they please, but if it goes against legislated law or precedent, it can (and should) be appealed. Sure, if the highest appellate determines the law says something different than it really does, that’s that, but it’s not like most judges have carte blanche to determine the outcome of any legal entanglement on a whole.

[mpalmer]

> gives any governor whose party controls the supreme court a blank check

Here's the thing: this is not supposed to be a thing. Not supposed to be how things work at all, but it kind of does now.

So the trust implicit in the broad language of our laws gives - has been giving - a massive advantage to bad faith actors who obtain power.

[ralusek]

It appears to be a law that is simply adding restrictions to what the state can do (like the first amendment, the best sorts of laws IMO). It’s not granting people limited rights. Any existing rights people had under the fourth or first example, for example, are still in place, this just sounds like further restrictions on the state.

[terminalshort]

What are rights besides restrictions on the state?

[ethin]

This phrasing is not by itself unusual; this almost mirrors the requirements for strict scrutiny.

[captainkrtek]

Do tyrants care about law? They find ways to work around law, write new law, and rule by decree.

Democracy is largely following norms and tradition of respecting the people and laws, but it can also be ignored when those in power shift.

[SilverElfin]

Agree - it feels a lot like emergency measures, which are broadly abused at every level of the government and by both major parties.

[BirAdam]

Yeah, so much that my feel is this law basically gives the state of Montana the right to confiscate computing equipment rather than the right to of the owner to have and use it. I understand that the intent of those involved in passing this was to protect civilians from the state, but such a broad and unspecific carve out just makes me think that a radical from either side could paint with quite a broad brush. “Who’s the terrorist today?” Kind of thing.

[simplulo]

I know what you mean, but this is actually as strong as a protection in Montana (and probably elsewhere) gets. The burden is high. Montana's RTC bill had strong and competent libertarian input.

[dvntsemicolon]

I see your point, but a tyrant doesn't need to follow laws in order to do tyranical things