• ira@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    9 months ago

    That’s certainly a strange new precedent. I hope Congress gets to work quickly writing legislation for all the other amendments before a president realizes there aren’t laws spelling out how freedom of speech is defined or how to enforce it, etc. etc.

    • shalafi@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      9 months ago

      There are mountains of case history on the other amendments. This one is truly new.

    • agent_flounder@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      9 months ago

      No matter what we might wish were the case, some amendments can be further defined by law. So this isn’t a new precedent by any stretch.

      Amendment III comes right out and says law can define the details.

      No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

      So does XIII, section 2

      Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

      And XV, section 2

      Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

      And, most apropos, XIV Section 5.

      Section 5. The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

      So there it is right there.

      Of course constitutional law is complicated. I don’t know what I don’t know. There are other solid arguments for and against, no doubt. But “unprecedented” isn’t one of them, it seems.