Question about the process of lawmaking

[TheJedi]

Lately, we are seeing a lot of fairly recent legislation being challenged in the Supreme Court long after they have been passed and signed into law.

So I pose these questions to the forum:

Challenging laws in the SCOTUS is a long, tedious and expensive process that drains precious taxpayer dollars.

Why, then, does our current system allow laws to be passed by Congress and signed into law without first determining Constitutionality in the Judicial branch?

What are the pros and cons of having all bills passed by Congress first go to the SCOTUS, before being sent to the Executive branch, to determine if it is Constitutional?

Would this not be perfectly exemplary of a system of checks and balances? I find it odd that the most important Branch is excluded from input during this process.

I am very interested in hearing responses and I would appreciate it if we kept partisan bickering out of this. This has nothing to do with politics and everything to do with the legislative process.

 

[TheJedi]

Wow. I would think this would have been a great topic to talk about seeing as how sly legislative procedures have allowed unconstitutional laws to be passed so many times.

 

[Flanders]

Lately, we are seeing a lot of fairly recent legislation being challenged in the Supreme Court long after they have been passed and signed into law.

So I pose these questions to the forum:

Challenging laws in the SCOTUS is a long, tedious and expensive process that drains precious taxpayer dollars.

Why, then, does our current system allow laws to be passed by Congress and signed into law without first determining Constitutionality in the Judicial branch?

What are the pros and cons of having all bills passed by Congress first go to the SCOTUS, before being sent to the Executive branch, to determine if it is Constitutional?

Would this not be perfectly exemplary of a system of checks and balances? I find it odd that the most important Branch is excluded from input during this process.

I am very interested in hearing responses and I would appreciate it if we kept partisan bickering out of this. This has nothing to do with politics and everything to do with the legislative process.

To TheJedi: I, too, thought along those lines in my foolish youth. I’ve learned better.

The suggestion assumes the SCOTUS is non-political when the High Court is very political. Proof: Justices are nominated for their political views. So submitting proposed legislation for approval, or a veto, ends up being decided by the majority POLITICAL VIEW. Future justices might not hold similar views; so that brings challenges right back to what you have now.

Also, the Nifty Nine already have too much authority. It would be foolhardy to give them another opening so they can engage in even more social engineering à la the ACA.

 

[TheJedi]

Lately, we are seeing a lot of fairly recent legislation being challenged in the Supreme Court long after they have been passed and signed into law.

So I pose these questions to the forum:

Challenging laws in the SCOTUS is a long, tedious and expensive process that drains precious taxpayer dollars.

Why, then, does our current system allow laws to be passed by Congress and signed into law without first determining Constitutionality in the Judicial branch?

What are the pros and cons of having all bills passed by Congress first go to the SCOTUS, before being sent to the Executive branch, to determine if it is Constitutional?

Would this not be perfectly exemplary of a system of checks and balances? I find it odd that the most important Branch is excluded from input during this process.

I am very interested in hearing responses and I would appreciate it if we kept partisan bickering out of this. This has nothing to do with politics and everything to do with the legislative process.

To TheJedi: I, too, thought along those lines in my foolish youth. I’ve learned better.

The suggestion assumes the SCOTUS is non-political when the High Court is very political. Proof: Justices are nominated for their political views. So submitting proposed legislation for approval, or a veto, ends up being decided by the majority POLITICAL VIEW. Future justices might not hold similar views; so that brings challenges right back to what you have now.

Also, the Nifty Nine already have too much authority. It would be foolhardy to give them another opening so they can engage in even more social engineering à la the ACA.

Buy you miss my point. They are STILL going to render decisions on these laws regardless so why forestall it? The only difference is we spend a lot more time and money on the process as well as further polarize a nation that is already buckling under the stress of partisan warfare.

 

[Flanders]

Buy you miss my point.

To TheJedi: I did not miss it. I responded to it!