Feb. 28th, 2012

kent_allard_jr: (morans)
Thanks to all who commented on my last entry. Most skepticism was directed towards the composition of my second chamber, and rightly so. I said it would be "elected from professional associations or something like that," suggesting it would be come kind of syndicalist body and I'd be giving the AMA, American Bar Association and so forth their own Senators. These special interests have too much influence as it is!

I was thinking more in terms of the Supreme Court. I'm filled with ambivalence towards the USSC, which has been a reactionary body for most of its history but which was responsible for Brown v. Board of Education and other great civil rights milestones of the 50s, 60s and 70s. I sympathize with the democratic rhetoric conservatives use in their critique of the judiciary, but know it's just used opportunistically to attack the reforms of the Warren Court. (I wonder what purpose they think the USSC should serve, beyond committing the nation to pointless antiquarianism.) Why give so much power to a group of unelected judges with lifetime tenure?

My conclusion is we need a role for people who are greatly respected for their knowledge and wisdom, who can speak their conscience, and force the political system to acknowledge their arguments, without fear of reprisals.

I'm not convinced their role should be limited to the constitutional interpretation, and at the same time, I don't think their power should be as unfettered as the USSC's. My answer, for an ideal role, was the "technocratic chamber" I proposed for the Rational Republic.


kent_allard_jr: (Default)

August 2012

5 67891011
1213 1415 161718

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags