In cases of judicial review where the courts strike down a law, it's usually not as simple as you're trying to make it.
First of all it's not at all clear in advance that the laws are unconstitutional, and that the lawmakers are "perpetrators". Plenty of times the laws are challenged and the courts uphold them. The whole point is that laws often push boundaries or address areas not previously addressed by the courts, and of course courts are political too. Lawmakers are trying to do what they believe is right for the people, and courts are too, and sometimes they disagree, and all of this is legitimate.
And second, what would it even mean for a court to "penalize" lawmakers? For the government to penalize itself? The lawmakers are elected and often passing laws their constituents voted them into office precisely in order to pass. Do you want to fine the lawmakers and take away their salary? Do you want to fine the people who voted for them? No, of course not. That's ludicrous. Just as ludicrous as legislatures (or governors) fining judges when they think judges decide cases wrongly.
This isn't criminal, it's legitimate disagreement over what policy and law ought to be. Penalizing lawmakers doesn't make any sense. In the end the court overturns something, and if a change is dangerous/disruptive enough the courts place an immediate injunction until the final decision is made. This is how democracies work.
(On the other hand, if a legislator breaks a law personally, e.g. murders somebody, they are tried personally and go to jail just like anybody else.)
I’d like to see them held accountable. Every person who was affected by an unconstitutional law should have the ability to sue for damages arising from the intentional abridgment of their constitutional rights.
Our rights would remain more intact if lawmakers actually faced personal financial penalties when they try to deny us the already very few rights afforded to us by the constitution.
I mean that's just ridiculous. 'Unconstitutional' is incredibly vague & subjective (and incredibly political), to the degree that most developed countries don't allow judges to overturn laws based on this at all. (1) As an example of how subjective 'unconstitutional' is, consider that different levels of the judiciary disagree with each other about whether a law is constitutional or not all the time. It's very, very common for one appeals court to declare that a law is in accordance with the constitution or not, and then a higher level to disagree completely. If judges who've devoted their entire lives to the field can't agree and constantly overrule each other....
How are you going to handle it when the Supreme Court reverses itself on decisions decades later? Or even just a few years later when a new Justice is added? Does all the money from damages get returned, with interest and accounting for inflation?
Law is never settled and courts disagree and reverse frequently... So I don't think you've really thought this through... :)
Including who is going to pay for all those damages, which is going to be the taxpayers, so hello much higher taxes! ;)
I guess the politicians at a loss could try to sue each individual plaintiff that was previously paid out, but that seems improbable. That would be a good thing in practice, if you toe up to the line so close that multiple courts overrule each other you lose regardless. That would help keep our rights intact.
Three strikes. Politician voted three times for laws that later were deemed unconstitutional by the SC, so the politician can only be a politian again after 30 years and some mandatory training and test.
The biggest risk would be that a politician will be wrongfully denied participation when they actually were fit for the job. That's a smaller price to pay than living with a politician who works against the constitution.
Blind adherence to a document written ~200 years ago, in a world that has vastly changed cultural and social norms is incredibly short sighted. People elect politicians based on trust, and if the politicians decide to pass a law that is the will of the people manifested.
There is no universal solution to "emotionally trick other people into voting for them". If the politicians don't follow up, you vote them out. The problem in the US stems from lack of choice, owing to the entrenched 2 party system. Almost every other country around the world has more than 2 options, and there are many examples where democracy is functional.
If you're assuming that every voter is intelligent enough to make their own voting decisions, then no one is being "tricked". And assuming to the contrary puts you on a slippery slope of who gets to decide if someone was "tricked" vs not.
I assume that many people find out themselves that they've been tricked shortly after the election and almost 4 years before the next election, when the first promises are broken.
> If the politicians don't follow up, you vote them out.
That's what I think where it lacks options. You cannot really vote politicians out. You can only vote politicians in. In some cases you can even only vote for parties, not for people. The ancient Greeks used to vote people out. I would at least want to be able to vote for party X, but not this guy, not this other guy and definitely not that guy who was the worst liar over the last 20 years, but somehow managed to stay afloat every time.
You put up with it until the next election where a new rep abuses you the same way. That way you get the will of the people written into law your whole life long.
The current Supreme Court is a right wing nightmare, so that sounds like an efficient way to get all the liberals out of government. Hard pass, what is fair about letting unelected judges determine who I get to vote for?
Ok, fair point, but how else can we get politicians to behave better? I don't think that assigning immense powers for four years without personal repercussions for bad actors has worked very well.
Its worked better than literally every other system that has been tried, though money definitely corrupts it. House members are elected every other year and have plenty of power if they want to use it.
First of all it's not at all clear in advance that the laws are unconstitutional, and that the lawmakers are "perpetrators". Plenty of times the laws are challenged and the courts uphold them. The whole point is that laws often push boundaries or address areas not previously addressed by the courts, and of course courts are political too. Lawmakers are trying to do what they believe is right for the people, and courts are too, and sometimes they disagree, and all of this is legitimate.
And second, what would it even mean for a court to "penalize" lawmakers? For the government to penalize itself? The lawmakers are elected and often passing laws their constituents voted them into office precisely in order to pass. Do you want to fine the lawmakers and take away their salary? Do you want to fine the people who voted for them? No, of course not. That's ludicrous. Just as ludicrous as legislatures (or governors) fining judges when they think judges decide cases wrongly.
This isn't criminal, it's legitimate disagreement over what policy and law ought to be. Penalizing lawmakers doesn't make any sense. In the end the court overturns something, and if a change is dangerous/disruptive enough the courts place an immediate injunction until the final decision is made. This is how democracies work.
(On the other hand, if a legislator breaks a law personally, e.g. murders somebody, they are tried personally and go to jail just like anybody else.)