Hacker News Reader

Comment by akira2501 | Hacker News Reader

> Would you say that any government official who advocated for the repeal of the 18th Amendment was violating their oath of office to defend the constitution?

Yes. Just because you happen to agree with them is not an excuse. The constitution belongs to the States and is ratified solely by them, not the Federal government.

A federal official advocating for constitutional changes from the position of their office is wrong to do so.

> It seems imperative that government officials

It is imperative that legislators do. Administrative officials are not given power to make law. They are required by the due care cause to follow it. They have no cause offering official opinions on these matters.

View on HN

>A federal official advocating for constitutional changes from the position of their office is wrong to do so.

I guess FDR and many other politicians should have been thrown in prison.

>It is imperative that legislators do. Administrative officials are not given power to make law. They are required by the due care cause to follow it. They have no cause offering official opinions on these matters.

How do the administrative officials implement the legislation without offering official opinions on what that legislation means? Don't they need to be able to discuss the details without worrying about prison?

> I guess FDR and many other politicians should have been thrown in prison

For campaign speeches before he was even in office? That's ridiculous. Once in office he used standard administrative procedure to get his way.. it probably helped that literally one month after being in office Congress, who has the right to do so, proposed the 21st amendment. This is a pretty thin example.

> How do the administrative officials implement the legislation without offering official opinions on what that legislation means?

They hire lawyers and consult with them _privately_. None of this has anything to do with using the power of your office to _advocate_ for a specific position.

> Don't they need to be able to discuss the details without worrying about prison?

Can they discuss food safety without implicating the first amendment? I obviously think they can, particularly through very broad administrative procedures already laid out by congress. This is just picking up goalposts and moving them. This argument was pretty narrowly constrained, if not slightly unhinged, to begin with.

As a rule, can we avoid dealing in absolutes? Implying that the FDA should have no input whatsoever on laws regarding food safety regulation seems a little odd given that they would represent 90% of the relevant experts.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com