[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Huh? A law is not constitutional simply by virtue of being formed by processes defined in the constitution. It's constitutional by virtue of of its not offending constitutional principles. A law that says "any person who criticizes the President will be hung by the neck until dead" could very well be passed in accordance with constitutional processes, but it would be unconstitutional for violation of constitutional principles; in particular the first amendment. No one challenges the constitutionality of laws on the basis that the process that enacted them wasn't appropriate.

Maybe I'm just misunderstanding what you're trying to say here.

I think you are missing the point. A law is constitutional until it is tested through the courts. The interpretation of the constitution is afforded to the court and they provide the balance to the power of congress to create law. If you believe a law to be unconstitutional you have every right to challenge the law in court and use the process in the constitution to have said law tested.

This is a contentious point. For example, if you were placed on a "restriction list" that prevented you from buying food, or restricted your access to only a specific set of hospitals that required you to drive to another state, or restricted your access to only certain lawyers upon being arrested, etc... In short, I disagree. I think some restriction lists could be unconstitutional. After that's conceded, all that's left is to discuss whether THESE sorts of lists happen to be.

Well, now you're reaching. People don't get placed on restrictions lists to prevent them from getting food. Now we are getting a little ridiculous. Food, on the other hand, does get put on restricted lists to protect the people. Different type of restriction list, I know, just making a point.

The other restriction lists do exist, although not controlled by the government. My insurance company provides restrictions lists that force me to go to specific doctors and hospitals. Is that constitutional, or is that okay?

To me these restrictions are constitutional because they do not inhibit my access to the services needed. This is a cost of working within the system. I don't have the big bad government between me and my doctor, but I do have an insurance company in the way, who do not have to abide by the framing of the constitution.

This kind of thinking is understandable, because real risks exist... but it's really walking a tightrope above a lake of horrifying authoritarianism. I mean, the bolded portions actually make me recoil when I read them. There's always some tension between liberty and collective security and maintaining that balance is arguably the source of the most difficult public policy decisions. Traditionally, for the most part the philosophy in the USA has been to prefer liberty to collective security. Of course, you're free to disagree with that philosophical leaning generally or in specific instances but to suggest that this is a no-brainer is crazy talk.

There is a fine balance that needs to be maintained. There is a process to follow if you feel that the system is working against you. Use it. Don't take up arms and occupy government facilities, don't break other people's ####, and don't kill those who disagree with your perspective. I'm not of can of the data aggregation the intelligence apparatus in the US does against its citizens, but the way it is done makes it difficult to challenge.