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.
I can understand the thought of having a law challenged as soon as it is adopted.
ReplyDeleteI 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