AND they have to gets votes. That's a huge field leveler. But I'm not blind to the messiness of making sausages.
I'm conceding that the facts as they now stand are that the SC is the a Super Branch of the government that has a veto power on all legislative laws and all executive actions.
So is the answer to just make sure "our guys" run things? It is most likely in today's environment that you'll either get legal drugs and illegal guns/speech/religion or legal guns/speech/religion and illegal drugs.
What's your best case scenario?
Best case scenario is that we get legal guns/speech/religion, and the drug question is left up to the States, where it belongs.
That "veto power" was established early on, in Marbury. You submit that they can "rewrite the law" but you have failed to demonstrate that they actually can or have ever done it.
If you think doing away with judicial review is such a good idea, let's try it in your state before we turn it loose on the national government.
The only test of the compliance of your state legislature and the Governor's office to your state constitution will be made at the polls.
Does that sound like a good idea?
Dream on that this is a "fact". -- The Constitution's checks & balances are working [as we see with new anti-Kelo legislation] -- and the fact that there is a lot of opposition to our legislative 'wars' on guns, vice & drugs [the subject of this threads article].
So is the answer to just make sure "our guys" run things?
The 'answer' is for all of us to ~insist~ that the constitutions checks & balances, -- and the document itself, is honored & supported by ~everyone~.
It is most likely in today's environment that you'll either get legal drugs and illegal guns/speech/religion or legal guns/speech/religion and illegal drugs.
What's your best case scenario?
Our rights to guns, speech, religion, intoxicating substances, consensual sex, and helmet-less motorcycle riding cannot be infringed.. - Even by a super-majority. -- That's the Law of the Land, not a 'scenario'.