|
|
|
|
|
|
by SilverElfin
7 hours ago
|
|
|
The constitution is the highest law of the land. Violating it has consequences. They should be enforced. > but arguing that legislators should be thrown in jail for passing laws you don't like is flashing a big neon "I'm a crank" sign Ad hominem aside, this is equivalent to “We should have laws but they should be selectively meaningless” |
|
|
yeah, the consequences are that the law in question gets overturned.
you're not arguing for enforcing existing consequences, you're trying to make up a whole new set of consequences.
people get extremely emotional about the topic of firearms, so let's take what you're saying and apply it to a different context, and hopefully you can understand how ludicrous it is.
FDR signed an executive order [0] for internment of American citizens of Japanese ancestry. it was challenged in a case that went to the Supreme Court [1].
SCOTUS upheld that executive order as constitutional. but let's imagine it had gone the other way, and been struck down as unconstitutional.
with the "consequences" you're proposing, a decision striking down EO 9066 would also imply President FDR must go to jail, wouldn't it? after all, he violated the Constitution. that is an insane outcome - a 5-4 SCOTUS vote could send a President to jail?
the Constitution clearly lays out methods of punishing elected officials - impeachment and possible removal by Congress. in your zeal to defend one tiny sentence of the Constitution, you're inventing out of whole cloth a completely separate way of punishing elected officials, one which would itself be unconstitutional.
0: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_9066
1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korematsu_v._United_States