points by vrganj 2 days ago | 0 comments
The original argument was that the constitution protects you from government tyranny.
You have government officials tyranizing the population and now the argument is "of course it can't prevent that".
What good is it then?
[–] majorchord 1 day ago
[–] vrganj 1 day ago
If you do your petitioning and then get shot by a government agent, then the piece of paper giving you the right is worthless and you don't really have the right. How is the justice system going to right the wrong? Are they going to resurrect the victim?
Anyone can write high minded promises. It's the real life application that makes them rights.
"The government" isn't some abstract cloud somewhere. It's a collection of people, and it's their actions that count, not their marketing.
[–] majorchord 20 hours ago
> If you do your petitioning and then get shot by a government agent, then the piece of paper giving you the right is worthless and you don't really have the right.
Hard disagree, there is no evidence that the agent acted in that exact way at the instruction of the government, I do not believe that it makes people's rights worth any less.
To me this is like saying rights are somehow fundamentally useless just because murderers exist in the world. Or accidents. Makes absolutely no sense to me whatsoever.
I think the key point is that it allows this "petitioning" of the government in the first place, that's what it's good for. But you still have to go through the court system to right any wrongs, which includes misbehaving police who may be breaking the law themselves.
The Constitution is not a judge, jury or executioner, so in a way it was always "limited" in what it can do if it's not actually respected.