back
2 comments
The legal construction of American rights was unique for its day (and remains unusual), being essentially a big list of freedoms & protections you have, with the assumption that government otherwise has unlimited authority.

Governments across the US then presuppose that if it's not on this list, then they can stop you doing it pretty much arbitrarily, and then write baroque laws to nibble away at what you did have. This is in contrast to the constitutional fundamentals of many older nations that start with the assumption that individuals can do anything, and then make laws saying what's illegal and/or compelled, and it's the rights of government that are limited by default.

Which is more free? I've always taken the view that the axioms of the US style are deceptively less free at an individual level, although this is an opinion often wildly unpopular with many Americans, who are powerfully indoctrinated from birth to assume they're the one true "land of the free". I guess "land of the most overtly protected from government abuses" is a bit of a mouthful.

The saving grace being, it's also the system best aligned with democracy, that famed system of selection whose principal value-add is enabling removal of the most egregious governments every few years without needing an army.

In any case, the consequences of the alternative construction of freedom are felt throughout American society and jurisprudence.

>... a big list of freedoms & protections you have, with the assumption that government otherwise has unlimited authority.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enumerated_powers_(United_Stat...

I won't disagree that this is largely how things work in practice, but I'd add the caveat that this practice is a dishonest interpretation on the part of the legislators. There are specific powers enumerated to the Federal government. Individual states have their own constitutional restrictions.

Quite the opposite, actually. Originally there were three buckets.

Feds do it, States do it, People do it.

There is also an implied negative version of said bucket. Government explicitly CANNOT do.

Anything not explicitly enumerated for the Feds, or denied to the Feds, and not explicitly delegated to the States or denied to the States falls into the bucket of the People.

Never shall something move from one bucket to another except by legislative action. This goes for either direction. This results in the "tyranny in 3 Acts" state of affairs where since no one has the stomach for a good ole purging of Federal/regulations over time, or using sunset dates by default, our legal code has become a minefield/cornucopia of selective enforcement justifications for the ambitious prosecutor. Lincoln, I think, said it best; and I think it is best to let his words stand for themselves. The speech of interest is his Lyceum Address, and I cannot recommend a full read highly enough.

http://www.abrahamlincolnonline.org/lincoln/speeches/lyceum....

Say what you will about the times, I find it extremely difficult to be dismissive of the essential points of that speech.

If the Temple of Liberty burns, it is because we have grown so overly complacent as to have put the torch to it. We have neglected the stone edifice of reason, erected a temple of sticks out of expediency, and burned it.

Yes, that's definitely a tension. The unstated reason is that if you don't write that in specifically, then national government has default unmitigated power. Those clauses are a reaction to that fundamental American expectation of all governments, as informed by the experience vs the British.

And indeed they don't work, they just lead to creative workarounds; in the rare event that it can't find a foothold on any existing or implied power, then national government will enable regional and local government, or private interests, to do what it wanted instead.

Given that mass surveillance and warrantless wiretaps violate even the stated limitations, I'm left with the question of whether constitutional protections can restrain government?

Plato's five regimes describe a cycle of degeneration which may be inherent to the human condition. Constitutional protections are only as good as the legislator's and judicial branch's will to honor them. A fig leaf which has little bearing on the underlying incentives.

care to elaborate?
Well I keep hearing all kinds of people ranting about their freedom, often in relation to COVID restrictions. Or taxes, or... As if living off of the back of a highly complex society incurred no responsibilities. That’s a parasitic not a symbiotic relationship
The idea of "freedom" mixes "freedom from" and "freedom to" ("freedom to shoot" is a thing, "freedom from being shot" is another etc.). If you demanded freedom from dumb, irrational positions from the public, you will want to demand the same freedom from dumb, irrational positions from the administration. Such freedom includes freedom from unreasonable restrictions - freedom to do what is reasonable.

I am not sure about the USA, but I grant you there has been extreme abuse of good sense around the world in the past two years (if literal, non generalized rules for Los Angeles had been made valid for the Mojave, for example).

Well i'm at least somewhat glad there are some people pushing back against micro control of one's life. You of course might enjoy the odd tolaitarian diktat, but each to his own.