3 ms·

Well in a sense that should be the way to go I think. Your constituency wants something, you try to implement it with your means and see if it sticks. If it doe

Well in a sense that should be the way to go I think. Your constituency wants something, you try to implement it with your means and see if it sticks. If it doesn't, you'll have to see if you can get wider support and fall back to just admitting that other rules supersede it. Call it blaming but it's the truth at the end of the day. Its just an issue that illegal laws can still be laws, but then again if everything needed a comprehensive legal check we'd get nothing done. I just have a sinking feeling that in some of your examples it's pretty blatant obvious corruption and certain politicians will get a comfy retirement soon. For example the highway tolls scandal was blatantly illegal and the idiots even signed laws on it. Costing us money now.

Tainnor 3y ago
I don't think it should be "the way to go" because legal battles (especially before the Supreme Court) take forever to sort out, and in the meantime nobody can plan because nobody knows what's actually legal. I don't think politicians should try to test the limits of the constitution all the time - maybe there are exceptional circumstances in which this should happen, but it's happening too often. For example, no matter what you think of rent control in general, there's no doubt that the Berlin rent control law that was ruled unconstitutional caused massive damage because as soon as that ruling came, people had to pay their landlords back rent for several months. And I agree with you re. the highway toll. Which shows that this problem really isn't limited to one end of the political spectrum, it happens from left to right.