SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices

 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: tejek who wrote (227820)4/7/2005 11:57:32 AM
From: TimF  Read Replies (1) of 1577749
 
Why? There are checks on the courts already built into the system.

The most important check is the defined role of the court to interpret law not create law. That is already built in to the system "on paper", but it is often not the way the system actually functions today.

.interpretation of the law may well lead to new laws. That is the province of the courts.

No it is not.

On the contrary, the courts would deem it unconstitutional, if not undemocratic.

It would be unconstitutional for a court to call an amendment unconstitutional. An amendment to the constitution is part of the constitution. It can not be unconstitutional.

What you don't understand is that a law could be enacted democratically but may not democratic.

If a law is enacted democraticly then by definition it is not undemocratic. The only way that it might be considered undemocratic is if it destroys the democratic system itself, or at least makes the system much less democratic. Even then the law would be democratic in the most basic sense of following a democratic process and representing the will of the people, what would be undemocratic would be the results of the law. An example of this might be if a democratic country voted to not allow a certain minority to vote.

Tim
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext