Americans, kiss your liberty good bye

[Martinus]

Incidentally, does the "this law applies to the extent the constitution allows it" (which seems to be the wording used for non-US citizens who are legal residents) meet the muster of proper legislation by US standards?

That sort of language gets reasonably often, e.g. long-arm statutes establishing personal jurisdiction over out-of-state defendants often include language "to the maximum extent permitted by the Constitution of this state and the Constitution of the United States" or similar.

It would raise serious concerns here.

Why?  Surely the legislature can act within its constitutional powers?  My understanding is that the only thing that language is for is to clarify how the statute should be interpreted.  It would always be limited by constitutional language, regardless of that clause, but the statute itself need not be relegislated if it violates constitutional rights or exceeds constitutional authority in any given application.

The problem I see with this is twofold:

1) it is not precise enough - it essentially requires the executive to interpret constitution/caselaw in order to act - which could cause problems,
2) there is an issue in assessing constitutionality of such legislation - since the legislation is technically within the bounds of constitution, but it may be applied outside of its bounds due to the above-mentioned ambiguity but there is no way to strike it.

It's essentially saying "executive is permitted what it is permitted".

[Martinus]

I can't think of any reason it would be improper for Congress to include in legislation guidance on how that legislation should be interpreted and applied and an explanation of the law's intent.  In fact, Congress might be well served doing that more often.

Hmm that would be considered inappropriate in our legal tradition since there are established methods of interpreting the law by the courts and the legislative cannot affect that per se - you can look to their intent, sure, but the literal interpretation takes precedence.

[Martinus]

I thought Jon Stuart's Daily Show is a valid source of US news. 

Your first of many mistakes.

I disagree. The US is a nation of complexities and paradoxes. TV comedy shows, podcasts and Hollywood movies explain it to me sufficiently. 

[Ed Anger]

I thought Jon Stuart's Daily Show is a valid source of US news. 

Your first of many mistakes.

I disagree. The US is a nation of complexities and paradoxes. TV comedy shows, podcasts and Hollywood movies explain it to me sufficiently. 

Mistake #1: Spell his name correctly.


Timski.

[Ideologue]

Incidentally, does the "this law applies to the extent the constitution allows it" (which seems to be the wording used for non-US citizens who are legal residents) meet the muster of proper legislation by US standards?

That sort of language gets reasonably often, e.g. long-arm statutes establishing personal jurisdiction over out-of-state defendants often include language "to the maximum extent permitted by the Constitution of this state and the Constitution of the United States" or similar.

It would raise serious concerns here.

Why?  Surely the legislature can act within its constitutional powers?  My understanding is that the only thing that language is for is to clarify how the statute should be interpreted.  It would always be limited by constitutional language, regardless of that clause, but the statute itself need not be relegislated if it violates constitutional rights or exceeds constitutional authority in any given application.

The problem I see with this is twofold:

1) it is not precise enough - it essentially requires the executive to interpret constitution/caselaw in order to act - which could cause problems,
2) there is an issue in assessing constitutionality of such legislation - since the legislation is technically within the bounds of constitution, but it may be applied outside of its bounds due to the above-mentioned ambiguity but there is no way to strike it.

It's essentially saying "executive is permitted what it is permitted".

1)is a problem, but one courts are well-equipped to deal with
2)is not as much of an issue as you suggest; much legislation is potentially unconstitutional as applied by the executive; much, if not most, legislation also involves preliminary interpretation by the executive; again, errors occurring in this process is why the judiciary must and does exist.

The language exists because the line of constitutionality can be vague and shifting--indeed, in our country more than many with more rigid constitutional structures.  Like I said, my main exposure to that sort of addition is in long-arm statutes, where state legislatures are subject to faraway CCoA and USSC decisions.  The addition of such a clause permits legislation to be as flexible as courts.  This has some not inconsiderable legislative convenience and social utility, even though it's really nothing more than a helpful interpretive reminder.

Sure, people whose rights are violated in the executive's good faith, or not so good faith, attempt to carry out a law, have to actually go to court, but they would have to do that anyway, even if the statute was written without that language.

[Martinus]

America confuses and scares me. 

[Ed Anger]

Good.

[OttoVonBismarck]

Oh go fuck yourself everybody. I am not a US lawyer ...

Interestingly enough, the converse is the very reason why I never post about how fucked up i think any given Polish law might be, despite what some Polish journalist or internet blogger may have written about what he thinks of the given law.  Having not spent any time in Poland, I also steadfastly avoid critiquing freedom in Poland or the lack thereof.

I don't post about how fucked up Poland is because I don't give a shit, and neither does anyone else.

[garbon]

Oh go fuck yourself everybody. I am not a US lawyer ...

Interestingly enough, the converse is the very reason why I never post about how fucked up i think any given Polish law might be, despite what some Polish journalist or internet blogger may have written about what he thinks of the given law.  Having not spent any time in Poland, I also steadfastly avoid critiquing freedom in Poland or the lack thereof.

I don't post about how fucked up Poland is because I don't give a shit, and neither does anyone else.

+1

[Razgovory]

I'm at work. My hour is worth 430 euro (that's about $560), so unless you are willing to pay that, I am not going to waste time on research. I was quoting a news source which also quoted people who apparently researched this. I trust them more than some random redneck on the internet.

Okay, it's time to come clean.  Who the fuck has been paying Marty that much by the hour to post here all this time?

[OttoVonBismarck]

No one is paying Marti that by the hour if that's what he bills out at...firm has its expenses to cover not to mention a desire for some level of profit above and beyond that.

[Caliga]

I would guess the markup is somewhere between 50 and 75%.

[Ed Anger]

I sorta support Mart on the research issue. I'd say fuck y'all too.

I don't know how many of Tim's lazy ass questions I've ignored in the past few months.

[garbon]

I sorta support Mart on the research issue. I'd say fuck y'all too.

I don't know how many of Tim's lazy ass questions I've ignored in the past few months.

Yeah but the difference is that you don't throw a hissy fit when someone points out that you've made a mistake.

[Berkut]

I sorta support Mart on the research issue. I'd say fuck y'all too.

I don't know how many of Tim's lazy ass questions I've ignored in the past few months.

The issue is not about Marty refusing to be bothered to do any research, it is is standard desire compulsion to believe anything negative about the US, and being perfectly willing to expend consierable energy railing about how screwed up it is, while not being capable of just admitting he was wrong, and the article was full of shit.

It is what we love about him though. He would not be nearly as interesting if he was rational and reasoned, we already have smart, rational, reasonable, and well informed lawyers. Marty fills an important niche.