Should the burden of proof *always* be on the state re:restrictions on civil rights/liberties?

[All Along The Watchtower]

Discuss.

[Antonio the Sixth]

It obviously depends what restrictions you're talking about.

Generally though, the biggest defense against state overreach isn't to put constitutional restrictions in place (these always get circumvented when there's enough political will), it's to have a healthy democratic society where the choices of where to draw the line between individual freedom and the common good is something that can be deliberated and negotiated collectively.

[Ferguson97]

This is way too broad of a question.

[lfromnj]

It obviously depends what restrictions you're talking about.

Generally though, the biggest defense against state overreach isn't to put constitutional restrictions in place (these always get circumvented when there's enough political will), it's to have a healthy democratic society where the choices of where to draw the line between individual freedom and the common good is something that can be deliberated and negotiated collectively.

Banning flag burning was massively popular, I guess one could argue that an amendment nearly passed but fortunately the firewall to pass such an amendment is big enough that cover votes were allowed.

[Antonio the Sixth]

It obviously depends what restrictions you're talking about.

Generally though, the biggest defense against state overreach isn't to put constitutional restrictions in place (these always get circumvented when there's enough political will), it's to have a healthy democratic society where the choices of where to draw the line between individual freedom and the common good is something that can be deliberated and negotiated collectively.

Banning flag burning was massively popular, I guess one could argue that an amendment nearly passed but fortunately the firewall to pass such an amendment is big enough that cover votes were allowed.

Of course, there are always edge cases. And I'm not saying there should be no constitutional protections either. In this case the First Amendment worked exactly as it should have.

Also far from me to imply that the US has a "healthy democratic society" to begin with.

[dead0man]

yes, of course

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Voted no on very technical grounds: I use the word "always" very sparingly. I agree with the overall spirit of the sentiment, however, regardless of the uncommon edge cases where the shoe is on the other foot.

[S019]

Well no, "always" is incredibly broad

[CEO Mindset]

Yes.

[MyRescueKittehRocks]

On all things

[Mr. Reactionary]

Depends on what burden of proof we are setting.

[Mopsus]

If someone you didn't know told you to do something, would you unthinkingly do it, or would you ask them why you should do it first?

[Associate Justice PiT]

     Depends on what that looks like in practice, and by what measure the proof is tested.