3 ms·
As it stands, the court is the arbiter for whether a law (or section of a law) is legitimate and how it's applied. All this would do is remove the latency betw
by daeken 14y ago
As it stands, the court is the arbiter for whether a law (or section of a law) is legitimate and how it's applied. All this would do is remove the latency between legislation being written and it being 'tested'.
- maxerickson 14y agoIt probably wouldn't be practical, given that they currently don't review anywhere near 100% of legislation (but maybe that is a feature). I would be concerned about the situation where the court effectively ends up with a veto and maybe decides that they should be the ones in charge. The only way out of that pickle is to reject the constitution.