Post

I don’t want to scare anyone, but basically every time I talk to a current or former government lawyer they tell me we are going to need a new Constitution. Because this one is inoperative.

The civil service, and government agencies that can deal with things like modern science, simply cannot exist without effectively a complete revamp of our admin law. Project 2025 and the Roberts Court (allow for substantial overlap) killed our Constitutional guardrails.

Usually the convo goes like this: [Senior govt atty] Yeah, things are bad in my agency, man [Me] I’m at NIH, lemme tell you [atty, getting excited] Hard to know what’s legal, rly [me]Yeah, almost seems admin law is dead [atty, now laser eyes] OF COURSE IT IS WE WILL NEED A NEW CONSTITUTION

And then usually: [atty looking embarassed] Sorry I don’t like to talk about that all the time, but I think about it every day, and let’s be real here we all know what’s happening I’ve had a convo like this with at least a dozen ppl fm diff agencies over the last yr and it always hits me hard

I work in the legislative branch, and we often muse that it’s hard to write a law that says not to break the law. “Dear Executive Branch, you really really need to follow that other law we already passed that you’re currently breaking. “We’d like you to stop. “Love, “Congress”

Bumping this reply. I do not think the problem is the American people or public opinion. The problem is our Supreme Court is packed and corrupt. The people cannot pay attention to detailed constitutional law while a corrupt Roberts Court rewrites the constitution case by case.

Here’s an example of Trump, Vought, and John Roberts blowing up civil service law.” From @democracyforward.org complaint today “he was informed of his termination in a 3-sentence letter from RFK Jr, who claimed to be acting "Ip]ursuant to the U.S. Constitution, Article II, § 2, cl. 2." 😂😂

This probably won’t fly and the courts will act, it’s too egregious. But the fact that Dr. Lane was removed with this wild circumvention of civil service law and he has to litigate this shows just how badly the system has broken down.

I'm an Australian with legal training and I've been saying it for the past 12 months. It's because precedent governs how a constitution is interpreted, and with so much new bad precedent there's no way to put the genie in the box - the only way to get rid of it is to get a new constitution.

We need Congress to be able to pass resolutions that state that a particular decision, while not being overturned, used an interpretation that does not represent the will of Congress, so it shall not be considered as precedent.

They can. Exceptions Clause and Congressional Control over Appellate Jurisdiction | Constitution Annotated | Congress.gov | Library of Congress share.google/GaiYnIbtZNpk...