Honestly with how some of these laws go, I’m kinda starting to wonder if a better version of our system might be to have any new law automatically sent to a court process to determine constitutionality before it goes into effect, to stop governments from just kinda spamming blatantly unconstitutional laws and causing trouble before courts get involved to stop each one.
Yarp, and the people who signed said bill/law should be reviewed and possibly automatically impeached to verify if they should be removed from office. It is in their oaths to protect/abide by the constitution, they should know it well enough that it shouldnt be hard to tell mal intent
Edit: I mean imagine someone getting fined $35,000 for calling someone the N word. It would be ludicrous. Yet the idea that if someone accuses you of being someone that uses such speech would get them fined instead is even crazier.
Heinlein suggested an additional branch of the government similar to Congress with the express mandate of repealing laws and with lower requirements to repeal.
This doesn’t solve the constitutional question. And I’m sure it would be packed with career politicians bouncing from chamber to chamber.
On second thought, taking more fuck heads in government may not be such a good idea.
I’d like to see how that works out.
I feel like it potentially creates a lockdown on new laws favoring the bias of the judges.
A whole new set of individuals who can block progress or laws they disagree with.
Currently bills or amendments can go into committee for refinement, discussion, etc.
In the proposed system -
Amendments that refine the existing law overwriting previous laws in their effect and verbiage, couldn’t pass.
In other words, by definition wouldn’t this court reject amendments, preserving the status quo?
Hey! Fiscally Responsible Republicans ONLY care about Taxpayer Waste when it’s being used to feed Starving Children! If you want to see these people voted out they should propose feeding Hungry Kids instead!
I mean, laws that conflict with other laws but not the constitution aren’t unconstitutional, and constitutional amendments are passed via a different process than regular laws generally, so I don’t see how it would make amendments any more impossible than now. Similarly, judges already can block laws, so I don’t see how this changes that really, unless some law in our current system is unconstitutional but never challenged. I do see how it might slow things down a little bit, because it adds an extra step for laws to go through before taking effect, and increases the number of court cases though
Honestly with how some of these laws go, I’m kinda starting to wonder if a better version of our system might be to have any new law automatically sent to a court process to determine constitutionality before it goes into effect, to stop governments from just kinda spamming blatantly unconstitutional laws and causing trouble before courts get involved to stop each one.
Yarp, and the people who signed said bill/law should be reviewed and possibly automatically impeached to verify if they should be removed from office. It is in their oaths to protect/abide by the constitution, they should know it well enough that it shouldnt be hard to tell mal intent
Edit: I mean imagine someone getting fined $35,000 for calling someone the N word. It would be ludicrous. Yet the idea that if someone accuses you of being someone that uses such speech would get them fined instead is even crazier.
Heinlein suggested an additional branch of the government similar to Congress with the express mandate of repealing laws and with lower requirements to repeal.
This doesn’t solve the constitutional question. And I’m sure it would be packed with career politicians bouncing from chamber to chamber.
On second thought, taking more fuck heads in government may not be such a good idea.
I’d like to see how that works out. I feel like it potentially creates a lockdown on new laws favoring the bias of the judges. A whole new set of individuals who can block progress or laws they disagree with.
Currently bills or amendments can go into committee for refinement, discussion, etc.
In the proposed system - Amendments that refine the existing law overwriting previous laws in their effect and verbiage, couldn’t pass.
In other words, by definition wouldn’t this court reject amendments, preserving the status quo?
Hey! Fiscally Responsible Republicans ONLY care about Taxpayer Waste when it’s being used to feed Starving Children! If you want to see these people voted out they should propose feeding Hungry Kids instead!
I mean, laws that conflict with other laws but not the constitution aren’t unconstitutional, and constitutional amendments are passed via a different process than regular laws generally, so I don’t see how it would make amendments any more impossible than now. Similarly, judges already can block laws, so I don’t see how this changes that really, unless some law in our current system is unconstitutional but never challenged. I do see how it might slow things down a little bit, because it adds an extra step for laws to go through before taking effect, and increases the number of court cases though