> If there's one thing I'm convinced of it is this. Given enough public approval and enough lawers anything is legal.

I think that's true, but I'd suggest that that's probably how it _should_ work: laws should reflect what the people bound by the law want, so if there's sufficient public demand for something, the laws should reflect that, and we'd consider it a failure if they didn't.  Every law is reflecting _somebody's_ values, after all.

The more interesting question is: is it legal even in spite of public approval?  Or: does public demand render something pragmatically legal, even though technically it isn't?  The latter seems like maybe the situation we're in here.

elvismercury

If there's one thing I'm convinced of it is this. Given enough public approval and enough lawers anything is legal.

Once you accept that taxation is a legitimate thing the only limit to a state taking more or under different circumstances is public submission. The legality of it can be explained to a willing population. It doesn't matter if it is ACTUALLY Constitutional. Many many things we take for granted as legit state powers are not constitutionally consistent. They just have been explained away by lawers.

By that I mean actual lawers and political figures who are commonly also lawers.

Politics_And_Law

Retroactive taxation and other legal shenanigans

If there's one thing I'm convinced of it is this. Given enough public approval and enough lawers anything is legal. 

Once you accept that taxation is a legitimate thing the only limit to a state taking more or under different circumstances is public submission. The legality of it can be explained to a willing population. It doesn't matter if it is ACTUALLY Constitutional. Many many things we take for granted as legit state powers are not constitutionally consistent. They just have been explained away by lawers. 

By that I mean actual lawers and political figures who are commonly also lawers. 