Should an Office of Constitutional Compliance be created int he US?

[guyfriday]

Given how many citizen lawsuits against states are happening in regard to US Constitutional issues (2A and 4A in particular but I suspect 9A and 14A soon as well). Should a federal office be created to review these laws and complaints in order to prevent states from abusing the legal system for the occurrence of suppressing citizen rights? 


While I don't like the idea of governmental bloat, I like the idea of the recent use of "Lawfare", or use of the legal system to hinder or suppress Constitutional Rights of the citizens. Having an office with a mandate of reviewing laws that toe this line of Constitutional Rights and are often trampled on by states (looking at you West Coast states), then further hindered by the system by certain politicalized judges shuffling around cases in order to defer justice for these cases. The creation of a Department of Justice office that does nothing but review these issues and intervene in these cases to provide Immedient relief for the public being targeted by these unlawful laws. 

As a side of having this office, the Judicial System wouldn't be as taxed by these cases so that cases in que can be dealt with in a timelier manner. 

What does the community at large think?

[Maxmars]

Given how many citizen lawsuits against states are happening in regard to US Constitutional issues (2A and 4A in particular but I suspect 9A and 14A soon as well). Should a federal office be created to review these laws and complaints in order to prevent states from abusing the legal system for the occurrence of suppressing citizen rights? 


While I don't like the idea of governmental bloat, I like the idea of the recent use of "Lawfare", or use of the legal system to hinder or suppress Constitutional Rights of the citizens. Having an office with a mandate of reviewing laws that toe this line of Constitutional Rights and are often trampled on by states (looking at you West Coast states), then further hindered by the system by certain politicalized judges shuffling around cases in order to defer justice for these cases. The creation of a Department of Justice office that does nothing but review these issues and intervene in these cases to provide Immedient relief for the public being targeted by these unlawful laws. 

As a side of having this office, the Judicial System wouldn't be as taxed by these cases so that cases in que can be dealt with in a timelier manner. 

What does the community at large think?

If I understand your meaning... it is a notion of oversight and enforcement?

One idea might be...

It seems redundant, since the apex judicial branch's prime function is constitutional protection. 
And ALL officers of the court are supposedly sworn to uphold and defend the constitution.  

I don't think it's unreasonable to expect that between the judicial branch and the officers of the court, there are ample opportunities to safeguard everyone's rights.

Perhaps the problem doesn't actually require a formal government oversight agency, but instead that people do what they say they are "supposed" to do, and police each other as their oaths demand.

Another might be....

Such an entity will require authority and agency to act. 

They can't be like the "other" agencies who are immediately challenged with "having no jurisdiction" every time they try to regulate...
and what is called for here is the regulation of the legal system. 
This theoretical agency must reside above and separate from the vast power of the associations of lawyers...
yet it must be filled with "internal affairs" type fully-accepted legal minds...

For that you'd have to confront both the institutions of law, and academia, (who would no doubt avail themselves of media allies to vilify everything you do.)

Often we consider a government agency to be the 'acting arm,' but more frequently it is only a placeholder... to be filled with "political appointments."  In that regard it is subject to the same 'gamesmanship' that's causing the problem in the first place.  If the idea is that I can simply call you a 'dangerous criminal,' and then everyone who will support me will act "as if it were true."  The problem is in me, the accuser, contextually speaking.  Assuming of course, you are not.

This is a tough problem, that I would wonder if the 'all-surface' political-class wouldn't rather just let be... so they can use the tactic too.