Something occured to me

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

About two weeks ago, there was some talk in here with regards to holding 
DC lawmakers crominally liable for passign bad laws.  This was followed 
up with postins pointing out that you can't do that.

However, this morning I remembered something.

Whent he republicans took over the congress, they instidtued that 
Contract on America.   One of the first laws that was passed (by both 
parties, I might add) was a law that made lawmakers abide by the same 
laws that "normal" people abide by.

Does this change, in any fashion, the original idea?

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
Comment: PGP Signed with PineSign 2.2

iQCVAwUBMA+76DokqlyVGmCFAQEmdgQAsM6fAjnwWMDqCIHQG2HGp6ECY3ITexxr
N8HFSTZUN7C34fPhAkTmUgalSKbv15Pcca8QXTutXTxhBAXsbTn8rCuQNhdjzigN
pXl77a/KRkQqkMCED9DoRkemD3Pt4zPAtQDJbcHmSfokovUSr0q0cFZF8aveCmAB
hEyRQEIFgAo=
=Ha4N
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
 
____        Robert A. Hayden      <=> Cthulhu Matata
\  /__          -=-=-=-=-         <=>          -=-=-=-=-
 \/  /  Finger for Geek Code Info <=> hayden@krypton.mankato.msus.edu
   \/   Finger for PGP Public Key <=> http://att2.cs.mankato.msus.edu/~hayden

On Fri, 21 Jul 1995, Robert A. Hayden wrote:

> Whent he republicans took over the congress, they instidtued that 
> Contract on America.   One of the first laws that was passed (by both 
> parties, I might add) was a law that made lawmakers abide by the same 
> laws that "normal" people abide by.

If you believe that...

Well, it is true, under certain limited circumstances, but it doesn't 
make them criminally liable for writing bad laws, nor can it.

Jon
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jon Lasser                <jlasser@rwd.goucher.edu>            (410) 494-3253 
          Visit my home page at http://www.goucher.edu/~jlasser/
  You have a friend at the NSA: Big Brother is watching. Finger for PGP key.

> 
> About two weeks ago, there was some talk in here with regards to holding 
> DC lawmakers crominally liable for passign bad laws.  This was followed 
> up with postins pointing out that you can't do that.

Here's something you *can* do:  

"Three strikes you're out" for politicians.

Any time the Supreme Court strikes down a law, any politician who has been 
found to have voted in favor of three such laws is immediately stripped of
all offices and rendered ineligible to run for public office ever again,
at any level.  (The same might apply to those found to have lied to a court

A politician who would trade citizen rights for political gain must be denied
the benefits of such a tradeoff.  This might prevent the rise of demagogues.
Term limits, etc., would of course help as well.  It would also give those
politicians who vote for 'motherhood' issues like 'protecting kids from the
perverts on the Internet' a good reason to think twice about the real issue.
If they REALLY believe they are protecting someone, they will still vote in
favor.  If they are going with the flow to avoid criticism, they'll lose in
the end.

My reasoning is that any politician whose laws are consistently struck down
should be deemed to lack a fundamental understanding of the rights of the
citizens of his/her country or jurisdiction.  They are thus a poor guardian
of those rights.

You heard it here first.
 
Craig Hubley

PGP message

In message <m0sZZTz-001Bg4C@passport.ca> Craig Hubley writes:
>Any time the Supreme Court strikes down a law, any politician who has been 
>found to have voted in favor of three such laws is immediately stripped of
>all offices and rendered ineligible to run for public office ever again,
>at any level.

This might be nice, but questions of "upsetting the system of checks
and balances" aside, you can't do it.  It would violate Article I,
Section 6 of the Constitution, which says that "for any speech or
debate in either House, [the Senators and Representatives] shall not be
questioned in any other place".  "Speech or debate" would cover the
vote on any question.

Therefore, the only organization which can hold a
senator/representative liable for passing a bad law is the one which
passed the law. :(