Our original system of government assumed that the government did not have power in a given circumstance unless it was granted, and if you look at old court decisions, a lot of thinking was done about this.
Today, the government assumes it has power over anything unless specifically hauled back from it. Part of this is that a court or judge, for any reason, can pretty much arbitrarily overrule or alter any law. This is convenient for those who don't like the hassles of things like elections or legislation, but I'm not sure it makes for good government.
I've said before that it's not a good idea to grant human beings godlike powers of government. I said it about presidents at the time, but it can apply to the judicial system, too. People sweat bullets over who's elected to president or who's appointed to the courts because now they have near-infinite power. Maybe it's time to change that.
Flame » in reply to Oh, you mean like the Dred Scott decision?
Well, by all means, let's go for "rule of men," then.
The whole thread (27 posts)
- Republicans talk suicide
- " bitter, mean, tone deaf, and out of touch"
- That's not what she said Buck.
- Isn't that why different ethnicities are needed on the Supreme Court?
- Altering the meaning of her quote to make it more acceptable.
- The quote was deliberately taken out of context by Republicans
- Text of speech.