Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Get A Jury For Legislation

page: 1
0

log in

join

posted on Mar, 15 2010 @ 12:05 PM
link   
You know how juries are selected? Well legislation should be brought before a jury which should reach a decission on whether or not to pass it into law (force). Forget congressional members and supreme court judges. But what say you to this being such a new order for the United States of America?

Congress (and also the U.S. supreme court) is full of you know what kind of people that do not represent your average American citizen.
Isn't America suckers when not represented by average Americans or when having laws regulated or passed not by average Americans?

There should be a jury called a super supreme jury for this purpose.


Congress should still make legislation, but the suoer supreme jury should be responsible for ruling over the legislation that is to come into force. They should maybe also be able to weed out any U.S. political bull in the legislation. Just saying this would be superb.

[edit on 15-3-2010 by Tormentations]




posted on Mar, 15 2010 @ 01:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Tormentations
 


So getting regular everyday people to do this is going to help how? You still are leaving the crooks set in power aren`t you? Why not get rid of the crooks first?

Also, how would you be able to make sure those everyday people aren`t going to take pay under the table for a vote? Yes, I`m sure there are people out there who wouldn`t take a bribe, it`s just finding those people is the case.



[edit on 15-3-2010 by FiatLux]



posted on Mar, 15 2010 @ 03:19 PM
link   
We already have that jury, it's called Congress. If your member sucks vote him out.



posted on Mar, 15 2010 @ 04:28 PM
link   
ALL people are corrupt in some way. This would not solve anything because there are always two sides (or more)to the story being presented. People tend to make decisions based upon themselves and their circumstances rather than seeing how intertwined they are to the situation, even when it seems corrupt or bad(How could THEY be part of something they dont agree with?). All you have to do is look at juries in this moment; still people are convicted even when there is only witness testimony or nothing but circumstantial evidence. People will focus on the (defendant) person’s indiscretions and judge them solely on that. Yet everyone, even people on a jury, have bias’ and commit negative actions on themselves and others around them without any conscious realization of those actions. There are still injustices in a jury system of law.



posted on Mar, 19 2010 @ 01:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Tormentations
 


Add:

There could be two lawyers to help make it clear to such a super supreme jury. One lawyer argues the pros of the legislation, one lawyer argues the cons of the legislation.

The lawyers would stand as the constitutional lawyers.





new topics

top topics
 
0

log in

join