Beats me. I have no clue and I am not even willing to spend to any time thinking about that.
See, we got on this topic because, at post 463, you provided me with a link to some quotes by Thomas Jefferson because you wanted me to become acquainted with Jefferson's opinion of Natural Law. So, I followed the link and read the quotations. One of the things he said concerned the importance that law be made changeable over time:
"But can they [laws] be made unchangeable? Can one generation bind another, and all others, in succession forever? I think not." - Thomas Jefferson
At post 468, I agreed with Jefferson about that issue. Like him, I do not believe that we have any right to try to bind the world for all time to our views about anything. I still agree with Jefferson about that. We agree with the power of legislatures to change the rules over time. We do not believe that courts have that power. If he and I have "gone off the rails" because we do not believe that we should bind all eternity to our opinions, then we will just have to accept that fate.
I think you and Jefferson are both wrong about this.
Yes, that is correct. You do disagree with us about the proper role of courts. I am ok with that.
Changing law does not mean changing the meaning of words. That is Stalinistic.
We do not change the meaning of words. We do not change the meaning of understood concepts. If we don't like them, we use different words that mean what we like, and different concepts that suit us.
We follow a clearly laid out methodology for changing our laws. If we make changes without following this process we are committing Tyranny. We are usurping powers against the will of the people.
At post 468, I agreed with Jefferson about that issue. Like him, I do not believe that we have any right to try to bind the world for all time to our views about anything. I still agree with Jefferson about that.
Now you are repeating your incorrect reiteration of my and others position. No one is suggesting that people cannot change laws. They can change them to suit their heart's content.
The objection is to this underhanded backdoor deceit of changing the meaning of words, and then asserting the laws mean what those changed words say.
In other words, a propaganda technique to deliberately obfuscate a correct interpretation of something.
THAT is the thing to which we are objecting.
You want to change the law? Go through the process. If the Public doesn't support your attempt to change the law, too bad! Simply redefining the words or concept to mean something else is an effort to impose your will on others, and it ought not be tolerated.
Yes, that is correct. You do disagree with us about the proper role of courts. I am ok with that.
I disagree with an objection to a system without putting forth an explanation as to how it should be done another way.
If you have a better idea than Judicial review, let's hear it. If you don't, then you will have to learn to grasp what Winston Churchill meant about Democracy.
Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.
If you don't think the courts should determine whether or not a law falls within the permissible allowance of the U.S. Constitution, then who do you think should do it?
And "nobody" isn't an answer. It is a task which needs to be done from time to time.