Should the US Have a Consitutional Amendment that Prohibits the Government Lying?

[chequita guevara]

I believe that the government should be prohibited from lying to it's electorate and dependents. By lying to us, we are unable to make properly informed decisions.

Think of how different how different history would be if the government couldn't lie to us. No Vietnam War. No Watergate. No Iran-Contra. No Drug War BS.

[Stefu]

What, so the US government obeys it's own constitution now?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Oh man, Che! That was a good one!

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Stefu
What, so the US government obeys it's constitution now?

Okay, you got me.

[GePap]

Of course not.

The way to punish the lying government is by voting them out. Such an ammendment would be impossible to write, and impossible to police. Anyone coudl for example claim that any time the Government writes a report (any report whatsoever, on anything), that it was lying because- X.

Fraud and perjury and a host of tother things are already illegal. Punish that.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Re: Should the US Have a Consitutional Amendment that Prohibits the Government Lying?

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
I believe that the government should be prohibited from lying to it's electorate and dependents. By lying to us, we are unable to make properly informed decisions.

Think of how different how different history would be if the government couldn't lie to us. No Vietnam War. No Watergate. No Iran-Contra. No Drug War BS.

That would depend on the operative definition of "lie."

[Imran Siddiqui]

MtG, that's after we decide on the definition of 'is'. We're still working on that one .

[MichaeltheGreat]

I wasn't sure if Clinton-speak or Nixon-speak was the most appropriate response.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Clinton-speak is more recent and the younger folk (like me ) can readily identify it .

[The diplomat]

A constitutional amendment against government lying is a very very bad idea for the following 3 reasons:

1) it would paralyze government because someone would want an investigation every 5 mn.
2) You can't enforce it.
3) Some lying in the case of national security is neccessary and good for the country.

[The Templar]

Better than lying might be a prohibition on deceptive and misleading information. Sort of like the prohibitions on deceptive and misleading advertising. Perhaps government speech should be treated more like commercial speech in that respect.

[Imran Siddiqui]

But don't we want misleading information at times, such as in cases of national security. If a journalist asks if we have such and such weapon and the guy says no or something?

[Giancarlo]

If there is a constitutional amendment that prevents the government from lying, make sure it extends to politics aswell, especially with the democrats and leftist political parties.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
But don't we want misleading information at times, such as in cases of national security. If a journalist asks if we have such and such weapon and the guy says no or something?

Why not answer: "for reasons of national security, i will not answer that question"? or "I can not give an answer to that question"?

Lying is not neccesary. But as I said above, such an ammendment is silly.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
But don't we want misleading information at times, such as in cases of national security. If a journalist asks if we have such and such weapon and the guy says no or something?

In the case of national security, the government can simply say they niether confirm nor deny. Most of the time, however, when the government is lying, it's not to protect us, it's to keep from being caught doing something illegal or to get us to agree to something which would would otherwise not agree.