tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7314151811889089656.post3649376802462565503..comments2023-10-28T04:56:34.620-07:00Comments on Ground-Up Libertarian: The Constitution Gamejsalvatihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16509764680257537430noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7314151811889089656.post-37250152637344196572007-04-19T22:48:00.000-07:002007-04-19T22:48:00.000-07:00For number 2, I meant they have lawyers comb throu...For number 2, I meant they have lawyers comb through to decide. For example, when they passed that partial birth abortion thing, they knew it would fail. Of course, then it passed, but that's called politicizaiton of the judiciary. Also, I disagree wiht lower courts having a legally binding say on the constitutionality of legislation.<BR/><BR/>For number 3, does the name Nancy Pelosi ring a bell? Also, that's the way parliamentary democracy works; the Prime Minister is always the majority leader. Also, presidents have very little legislative authority, they have persuasion. I can't really imagine an argument against persuasion. Finally, the leader of the government (aka president)should have a really strong say regarding the legislation s/he is asked to enforce, because s/he is the one who's going to enforce it.Johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18312224023541798450noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7314151811889089656.post-39203468254664645792007-04-19T16:56:00.000-07:002007-04-19T16:56:00.000-07:00Someone from the legislative branch should have po...Someone from the legislative branch should have policy setting influence, probably the majority leader. It's dangerous to mix legislative authority with executive power; that's why we have seperation of powers in the first place. <BR/><BR/>As for 2, I mean that there should be a constitutional court review (not necessarily by the Supreme Court) that has the force of law. I imagine a set of courts under the supreme court, but seperate from the criminal and civil court system. The important part is that the review has the force of law instead of an advisory role as congressional committees do. If something similar to this already happens, do you have a link?jsalvatihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16509764680257537430noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7314151811889089656.post-35611095895025195142007-04-19T13:53:00.000-07:002007-04-19T13:53:00.000-07:003's solid and makes an interesting distinction. To...3's solid and makes an interesting distinction. To my understanding, 2 is already done, unless you mean to have it done by the Supreme Court. Then the quality of review would be drastically reduced by the astonishing case-load. 1 I don't really get. All administrations consist of cabinets which act as executive councils, with the President as the head. As for policy-setting, who should have policy setting influence?Johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18312224023541798450noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7314151811889089656.post-15485154212593926462007-04-19T01:49:00.000-07:002007-04-19T01:49:00.000-07:00There are more typos in this entry than in all the...There are more typos in this entry than in all the others. I think. See you Friday!<BR/><BR/>JulianAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com