After having read the constitution, more then once, I have just 1 issue with the document. OK, make that 2.
It was written by the highly educated of the time, and as such is a bit flowery. If the language was more simple, the looney would find re-invention of the meaning more difficult.
Then there's the function of the supreme court. Instead of laws requiring a challenge by someone harmed, each and every bill passed should require a review by the court before being enacted. Every bill should be examined for constitutionality before becoming law. Maybe we wouldn't be in the near tyranny that we now have.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
I can understand the thought of having a law challenged as soon as it is adopted.
I think that would be a bad idea because so many of the people on the court could agree with the idea; then there is no room for challenge.
People change over time; consensus shifts from acceptable to unacceptable -- by having a person harmed bringing suit, they can affect that consensus.
I think the Court's definition of harm and standing needs to be revised though
Post a Comment