I would like to point out that, according to the current case law of the Court of Justice – even if Amy Coney Barrett is confirmed – I cannot think of a single provision of H.R. 1 that should not be maintained, even under very original or limited case law. But the court is also supposed to be an essential accountability mechanism – it decides not only on the constitutionality of various safeguards, but also on their application. The future of our democracy will therefore depend on a court that considers the protection of democracy as one of its fundamental tasks. This is something we should take into account when we think about affirming a new justice. Weiner: That`s a good question! Many of the protections outlined in H.R. 1 would be enforced either by the Department of Justice (through the courts) or by the Federal Election Commission. Thus, the Protecting Our Democracy Act, as well as H.R. 1 itself, is very important in part because it strengthens the independence of the Department of Justice, which is responsible for some of these new federal voting rights (H.R.1 also includes a much-needed overhaul of the FEC that includes key recommendations from the Brennan Center). Neither the laws nor the procedures used to create or implement them should be secret; and. Laws must not be arbitrary. Simply put, in a democracy, the president cannot choose winners and losers – on the contrary, the law must be applied equally for all individuals, regardless of their relationship to the president. Presidential interference in how the law is applied to a particular party—whether to the advantage or detriment of that party—often violates the president`s constitutional obligation to ensure that laws are executed expeditiously, as well as the fundamental constitutional principles of due process, equal treatment before the law, and First Amendment law.
participate in the political process. More information on the constitutionality of these measures can be found in our White Paper. At the end of the day, paper rules are not enough. They must be part of a culture that truly values the rule of law and is committed to the rigorous and balanced application of the law. But you can`t build that culture until the law reflects what our values really are. The law therefore functions partly as a stick, but also as a means of expressing society`s expectations. And I think that`s an important thing, especially when it comes to the president. These rules express our collective understanding of how the president should be held accountable.
The following typology categorizes the ways in which President Trump and the Trump White House have undermined the longstanding bipartisan belief that U.S. laws should be administered and enforced impartially, and that, therefore, politics should not play — or even appear to play a role — in the Justice Department`s investigative and enforcement efforts. in which certain parties are involved. Political interference in law enforcement cases involving certain parties is unconstitutional and undermines the rule of law. Constitutions do much more than form a government and regulate their relationship with citizens. In many countries, they have also become crisis management instruments. The benefits of constitutions designed for conflict-affected and deeply divided States depend on their ability to reconcile groups, address intolerable grievances and prevent further polarization and deterioration of conflicts. Here, too, national ownership is of the utmost importance.
The choice of procedure should be left to the national constitutional pawns, who are able to assert themselves in the local context. A constitutional design that meets the requirements of conflict resolution has had some success. At the same time, other factors such as economic inequality are increasingly important determinants of the new constitutional requirements. President Trump said he had an «absolute right to do what I want to do with the Department of Justice.» This view is anathema to our democratic system of government and shows a profound misunderstanding of our Constitution. The promise that every American will be treated equally before the law and that no one will be above the law is a fundamental principle of American democracy. Prosecutions free from political influence – real or perceived – underpin all our other freedoms. In a functioning democracy, leaders do not wield state power to favor political allies and punish political opponents. The government should not be able to pick winners and losers for law enforcement based on popularity or political pressure. (…) a principle of governance according to which all persons, institutions and public and private bodies, including the State itself, are responsible for the implementation of laws promulgated publicly, equally applied and decided independently, and which are in conformity with international human rights standards.
It also requires measures to ensure respect for the principles of the rule of law, equality before the law, accountability before the law, fairness in the application of the law, separation of powers, participation in decision-making, legal certainty, avoidance of arbitrariness and procedural and legal transparency.2 The term «cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment» had not been defined by the General Assembly but should be interpreted as broadly as possible. possible protection against physical or mental abuse.