nachshon_r<p>&#39;sounds like a French horn (I&#39;m referring to farts) that&#39;ll never stop, then abruptly does:]</p><p>Not advocating a parlimentary government—if you read on—but in one, they pass the laws, and then law enforcement and judges apply them. I&#39;m not sure about other countries&#39;, but the USA&#39;s constituition needs to be amended so laws cannot get passed without pre-approval of the Supreme Court. It&#39;s imbecilic to wait for an unjust law to be challenged by a victim of its enforcement, instead of getting the court&#39;s approval BEFORE the unjustice occurred. Why would we let Senators, who are popularly voted in, decide what is just and right and good when there&#39;s an entire branch of the government that ultimately—and I&#39;m referring to the Dude, sorry, I mean the Supreme Court, here—determibes what is just and right and good under the Constituition. Why call in the Justices after the fact?</p><p>[and here&#39;s that <a href="https://kolektiva.social/tags/aftertoot" class="mention hashtag" rel="tag">#<span>aftertoot</span></a> that often follows the aforetooted]</p><p>And if your answer is &quot;it&#39;s a system of checks and balances,&quot; how about we only keep the checks and balances that don&#39;t defeat the values the document lays at its foundation. <a href="https://kolektiva.social/tags/politicalscience" class="mention hashtag" rel="tag">#<span>politicalscience</span></a> <a href="https://kolektiva.social/tags/politicaltheory" class="mention hashtag" rel="tag">#<span>politicaltheory</span></a> <a href="https://kolektiva.social/tags/constitutionallaw" class="mention hashtag" rel="tag">#<span>constitutionallaw</span></a> <a href="https://kolektiva.social/tags/longtoot" class="mention hashtag" rel="tag">#<span>longtoot</span></a></p>