You know how juries are selected? Well legislation should be brought before a jury which should reach a decission on whether or not to pass it into law (force). Forget congressional members and supreme court judges. But what say you to this being such a new order for the United States of America? Congress (and also the U.S. supreme court) is full of you know what kind of people that do not represent your average American citizen. Isn't America suckers when not represented by average Americans or when having laws regulated or passed not by average Americans? There should be a jury called a super supreme jury for this purpose. Congress should still make legislation, but the suoer supreme jury should be responsible for ruling over the legislation that is to come into force. They should maybe also be able to weed out any U.S. political bull in the legislation. Just saying this would be superb.
No, why in the hell would this ever be a good idea? Most people don't have a clue about any issue, let alone whether it's constitutional and legal.
Well there could be two lawyers to help make it clear to such a super supreme jury. One lawyer argues the pros of the legislation, one lawyer argues the cons of the legislation. The lawyers would stand as the constitutional lawyers.
The public is not informed enough to make decisions on a constant basis. This is why we don't have direct democracy on every issue. Except in California, which left it as the state that was literally 12 hours away from having to declare bankruptcy. And that was because of simple issues in regards to taxing and spending projects. What happens when it's complex bills as most bills are on housing and business regulation, and others. 1/2 the country can't even be bothered to vote for president and congress every four years and you want a jury of random people to decide the fate of every bill?
Who says the whole public when juries are selections picked from the public, but is not the entire public? And whose to say such a selection can not be informed if not already informed? People have a learning ability for a reason, you know? Unlike people who don't vote every four years as you say, jury duty is something manditory by law. Might as well put juries to good use instead of just on matters civil and criminal.
Juries work in criminal court(well that's even up to debate) because every person generally has the ability to look at facts presented and determine guilt, most people on the other hand can't even comprehend inflation.
They teach economics in high school. So the super supreme jury members should then at least have a high school education. This kind of jury would be somewhat set apart from the other kinds of juries so that it all in all makes due good enough for America.
this does sound like a good idea. perhaps selection could be based on level of education. perhaps the selection pool can be amongst college professors and people who have higher level job positions. people from all over the country.
I've had this idea before, it's an interesting concept. After all we do let average americans make decisions of life or death in criminal cases, and a federal legislative jury of our peers seems like a very pure form of representative gov't. At such a supreme level though I think it would be easily corruptible, just like the current system. It'd be pretty easy to influence one of the lawyers on either side or otherwise obfuscate facts.
The current system majorly allows for corruption through lobbyist gifts and earmarks and lack of accountability. Corruption is always a risk, and having a republic like we do, I would agree, is much better way to avoid it then an all out democracy.
hey what if we gave the power to control the mj question to the local town councils? I sure dont want to live in some crap ass town with a bunch of right wingers anymore than they would want to live around me! This way we could have our weed and eat it too?
i think the real question should be is the DEA really wanted or needed anymore? Hell all the DEA is or was is a holdover from the Nixon days. The goverment should build a nice little residence besides the federal land dump and let those assholes go play mind games with each other!!
50% of people graduating high school are functionally illiterate. They can read at the most basic level possible, but have absolutely no abstract comprehension skills.
there is the Elkins Man act passed in the early 20th century. you can take a law and present it to this three judge panel to decide if a law is constitutional or not. but that is probably a long arduous process. i agree, every law should be brought before a jury of a cross section of regular every day americans to decide if this law is constitutional, especiall in respect to the rights of the minority who would be oppressed by a law. alas, we have to many laws on the books that make life miserable for the minority such as the war on drugs laws, the hate speech laws, the laws that forcibly torture drug(e.g. neuroleptics such as olanzapine, seroquil, haldol, etc)people for merely being different(not threat to self or others. freaking violent offenders have more rights to protect them from cruel and unusual treatment--8th amendment--than do the "mentally ill"), and other demonizing, witch hunting, politically correct, laws, etc.
the average american can't even name everything listed in the first amendment, let alone the whole bill of rights, let alone the entire constitution, let alone supreme court rulings and previous case law which is the entire foundation of our common law system, and you want them to to judge what is constitutional or not. http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/showpost.php?p=6275354&postcount=48 this is what the majority think about rights
