You get that the responsibility of the l branch is not to represent the desires of the "the people", but the integrity of the Constitution, right? The "need" the court isn't by consensus. That's the point of the formation of the Judicial Branch was the recognition that sometimes even the majority of citizens can "get it wrong". So, as a way to balance that to prevent discrimination by "rule of the mob" the Judicial Branch was designed to weigh laws against the constitution, and make sure they were in accordance. If you feel that the rulings have been unduly "one-sided", perhaps you should consider the possibility that the problem is not with the courts, but with the laws that you keep trying to enact. Just a thought...
1. a. Yes I agree that the conflicts over unchangeable political beliefs
mean something is wrong with the law in that case and also
b. Something is missing from the Constitution
if we are not handling political beliefs with equal protection of the laws as a creed
under the First and Fourteenth Amendments, but allowing the govt to take one side and impose it on the other
in cases of unresolved conflict. Something IS inherently wrong with that
and DOES require either a public agreement to interpret the First and Fourteenth Amendments
to recognize and respect political creeds, OR a Constitutional convention or Amendment if needed.
Something has to change because this system is not solving this problem as is, and it keeps coming up,
in different forms and issues, where the common factor I find is political beliefs that are not equally accommodated.
CZ"[/QUOTE]
Actually slaves [B]didn't[/B] "due process" said:
You are committing a couple errors here. First, that consensus is always based on understanding of the Constitution. It isn't. I would submit that beyond the preamble, most Americans would have hard time even listing the seven articles of the Constitution without looking it up, let alone expressing a reasoned grasp of the concepts within those articles. And we haven't even gotten to the 27 amendments of the Constitution, and how each of them affects the concepts they are related to in the in body. So, to suggest that popular referendums are based on rational desire to protect the rights enumerated within the Constitution is naive, and badly overestimates the education, knowledge, and understanding of "the people".
Second you assume that everyone reads all of the contents of every measure that comes before them for public referendum. Hell, our legislators, whose only job is to pass legislation, don't even do that. What on Earth would make you think that average citizens, who are very busy living the lives - working, taking care of family, etc. - would take the time to do so?
And they aren't expected to. You are still missing the fact that the check on popular referendum isn't the political system itself - it is the Judicial Branch of the government. You see public referendum still part of the legislative process. And the Judicial Branch was designed to be the check on the legislative process. It's job is to ensure that any laws passed - whether by legislation, or by referendum - are, in fact, constitutional.
1. Doesn't it start with the people writing good laws and contracts first?
If we did this right, wouldn't we impose less burden on the judicial and leave that open to handle
real issues of govt that people cannot better resolve ourselves directly in private?
See Code of Ethics for govt service:
ethics-commission.net
How can we avoid passing bad or burdensome laws to begin with
which then burden the legal and judicial system with reviewing and handling lawsuits after the fact?
by the code of ethics we should employ the most efficient means of getting tasks accomplished.
Wouldn't it cost less to mediate and resolve conflicts in advance, not wait until afterwards to sue?
Citizens don't need to be educated on every jot and tittle of the laws,
but just know the basic Bill of Rights plus 14th Amendment
and the Code of Ethics and their local police and city/county ordinances and process,
and they can participate equally. Most grievances or process of law should fall
within those basic guidelines i find to be the MINIMUM required of citizens to be legally responsible.
otherwise we backlog our system with crimes, abuses and lawsuits from violations
because people either don't know the laws and obligations or the cost of the process.
We would save more time, resources and damages/debts to the public
by mediating to resolve conflicts and prevent infringements including criminal and civil violations of laws.
By educating citizenry on the standards of law and what the process are and how much they cost.
2. Also note that the system of using the legal/judicial system to check against abuses
has been skewed by corporate interests and legal resources/connections being unequal.
Corporations or even private citizens who can afford legal resources
can buy their way out of accountability. Even lawyers have known this
and have been fighting their own system in an uphill battle where justice is for sale
financially and politically. This is well known the legal and judicial system is run by politics and money.
We cannot depend on that "after the fact" to resolve conflicts or restore/correct anything gone wrong.
The only way to guarantee equal protections is to work toward PREVENTION of violations
in the first place. if we PREVENT the infraction or conflict from imposing on one party's interests unequally
then those interests can be protected equally as the opponents interests.
There is no guarantee of correcting and restoring justice after the infraction occurs,
so the system is not equal.
this has long been a problem. Look at rape victims who get put on trial along with their offenders.
This is still considered the best justice system in the world,
but it doesn't prevent crime or abuses by relying on this "after the fact."
True protection of rights is going to come from
teaching people what the laws are, how to enforce standards consistently
and how to redress grievances and resolve conflicts directly to try to
curb, correct and prevent violations in advance and reduce damages after the fact.
We cannot keep expecting our judicial system to clean up afterwards.
Look at our courts backlogged, our prisons and our immigration system
for people waiting on due process.
We need to stop the backlog of unnecessary conflicts jamming up the system
so it can be reserved for the cases of public security and safety that govt is supposed to handle.
The civil conflicts need to be prevented and managed
by conflict resolution or we'll always have this backlog and people
getting away with injustice because it takes so long to address and doesn't act as a
guaranteed correction much less a deterrent.
Basing decisions and lawful conduct on "consent of the governed"
would act as an immediate check with immediate consequences
where both parties that agree to this standard get it protected for them,
instead of gambling on majority rule or court ruling where it is not guaranteed.
Agreeing to go by consensus would ensure that between those parties.
and yes I agree that consensus is based on Constitutional standards,
(and I also throw in the Constitutional ethics under the
Code of Ethics for Government service); I would base the standards
of laws on that and urge that all citizens be equally knowledgeable and
trained in this process in order to enforce their equal rights under law.
How can we be "equally protected under law"
if citizens don't even know how the laws and govt
work, and what the standards are for due process?
No wonder we are unequal and people can be taken advantage of politically
to depend on politicians in parties and govt to make decisions for them!
There is no shortcut to teaching people the laws in order to be equal under them.
Even to delegate authority to other people to govern, they would need to have basic knowledge
in order to check their own govt and hold lawyers, judges, leaders and other party/govt officials accountable.
I don't see a shortcut to that, because as soon as people depend on someone else,
they are not equal in power. They must at least be given the choice and access
to help to be legally and politically equal in power with equal voice in decisions
"in addition" to the choice to delegate or hire out this authority to another party to represent their interests.
