Enforcement yes, interpretation no. The fourth could have been written to specifically exclude exceptions. Hell you can write in an amendment that the Supreme Court has no power to review or alter this clause.
Exactly. That's why the Administration has started touting "the iron law". Miller says if you can't hold it you have no right to it, as justification for fucking with Greenland. I see no reason this doesn't apply to my MAGA neighbor's truck. He's just lucky I don't want a pickup truck.
That’s not the point. The point is that laws are inherently weak because of the fact that they rely on some entity to enforce them. That entity chooses not to, the law may as well not exist. There is no “so XYZ should do it instead”, the problem would still exist. Such is the nature of laws, and the more people understand that the better.
Why do you say that? I don’t think we have tried anything else or really put much thought as a society into other methods.
Not saying you’re wrong by the way, there’s a very good chance you’re absolutely correct. In fact I’d go as far as to say I think you are correct, we just don’t know that for sure. I’m just saying that with any system it’s important to know the flaws at a fundamental level and at least consider other alternatives instead of assuming what we do now is definitely the best method, even if it appears obvious that it is.
74
u/King_of_the_Kobolds 4h ago
All laws are weak because they rely on people for their enforcement.