Constituional cours are a last defense against bad laws though and should not be the first one - they are not designed to be fast enough to prevent a lot of damage being done before they strike something down.
replyThe first defense is that the Council of the EU (formed by government ministers of the member states) and the European Parliament (elected directly by EU citizens) have to agree on the legislation. And while the council is staffed by career politicians, the parliament is a more diverse group that's generally a bit closer to the average person
replyFrom the point of view of the individual, the parliament is our first defense. And this is an example of it working
If something in 'Chat Control' is so fundamental that it should lead to the law not even being brought up for discussion (privacy), then that 'right' should be more clearly defined in the constitution, or constitution like structure.
replyIt's when laws can exist, but simply have bad implementations, where you obviously can't jump to an amendment process.
I mean, they're _not_ the first defence. This is a story about the parliament rejecting a bad law.
replyThat constitution sure did stop Giuliani from having the cops shake down all those black guys.
replyAt the end of the day you still need people to actually believe it, for whatever "it" is.
Yeah, this is more or less what I'm saying. Large parts of 'Chat Control' likely _are_ unconstitutional, but that doesn't necessarily stop it being brought (it just makes it likely that the courts will kill parts of it if it ever passes).
reply> (it just makes it likely that the courts will kill parts of it if it ever passes).
replyYears after harm was done and lives were ruined no less.