Post by Administrator on Sept 1, 2012 17:55:13 GMT -5
It is frankly pathetic that centuries after the deaths of the Founding Fathers we still so revere them that we determine the appropriateness of our modern solutions based upon subjective speculation after historical research into their original intent. If only we could travel to their times and ask them to a man whether it was their original intent that our judgment be superseded by theirs. However, in their separation of powers and their various checks and balances they created a polity worthy at least of emulation.
Yet a new constitution must be as free as possible of the ambiguities, oversights, and outright errors passed down to us in the founding document. Our original intent ought to be clear before its ratification. And it ought to be equally clear that by devolving the legislative powers in this direct democracy to thousands of political precincts, legislative leeway is not only to be expected but encouraged. The preservation of the right to life, for instance, may bear multiple local legal manifestations.
The courts, though, whose justices are well versed and practiced in the law, must decide whether a proposed or an existing law meets the standards set by the new constitution.
Yet a new constitution must be as free as possible of the ambiguities, oversights, and outright errors passed down to us in the founding document. Our original intent ought to be clear before its ratification. And it ought to be equally clear that by devolving the legislative powers in this direct democracy to thousands of political precincts, legislative leeway is not only to be expected but encouraged. The preservation of the right to life, for instance, may bear multiple local legal manifestations.
The courts, though, whose justices are well versed and practiced in the law, must decide whether a proposed or an existing law meets the standards set by the new constitution.