• Dkarma@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    8
    ·
    10 months ago

    I’m not. Amazing how just stating their arguments is somehow interpreted by obviously unintelligent people as promotion of those concepts.

    The law is a contract. Whether you like it or not. The state is required to notify the public of law changes. This is an assumed meeting of the minds. That is the literal foundation of contracts.

    The Constitution is in no way a limitation of powers. It’s an outline of the structures of a democratic system.

    You, ma’am, are very very confused.

    • SomeoneSomewhere@lemmy.nz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      10 months ago

      The state is required to notify the public because the state has decided it is required to notify the public, and the constitution, formal or informal, sets out that requirement.

      In parts of history and the world, there is/was no such requirement. The Sovereign’s word is law, with no need for statute to be published or breached.

      A contract needs both parties to agree to it, and to any changes, not just be notified. Laws are unilateral.

      “Congress shall make no law” is the most basic of restraints. Yes, there are other parts mandating how aspects of the government shall be operated. That’s because the US government was formed with a written constitution, more-or-less fully formed.

      In governments that evolved over more centuries, like the UK (and I believe pre-CCP China), the initial assumption/assertion is that the sovereign has supreme executive power. Statute and case law may restrict this, and transfer power to the other branches of government that are formed - but theoretically, power flows from the grace of god, the mandate of heaven, or more practically the tip of a sword. The state has a monopoly on violence.

      I’m also not sure why you think I’m a woman.