McGehee suggests in the comments section of my previous post that if juries [corrected] are good enough to try criminals, maybe they're good enough to approve or reject legislation as well.
So how would a system of "legislation by jury" work? I don't think it would be that hard. Transfer the power to write bills to the executive branch, and then set up a system for randomly selecting registered voters to either approve or deny every such proposal that comes down the pipe.
Objection: Some bills require technical knowledge to understand.
Response: Maybe bills that are that complex are bad, ipso facto. Bills should be no more than 1 page in length, and should only deal with a single issue.
Objection: Empaneling a nationally representative jury would be a nightmare.
Response: Maybe, if you expected the jury to actually discuss the bill, as a trial jury does. But with modern technology it would be trivial to set up a computerized system that would allow 1000 or 10,000 randomly selected citizens to vote via the internet.
Perhaps ranther than abolishing legislative representatives, it would be better to simply require a randomly selected jury to approve any laws that the legislature passes.
Our bicameral Congress was founded with these ideas in mind. The House of Representatives was supposed to serve the restraining, close-to-the-people function, but over time that principle has been eroded.
You did mean "if juries are good enough to try criminals," didn't you? Anyway, Jury Nullification is premised on exactly that foundation. This privilege of the jury, though well grounded in constitutional law, is so threatening to the powers that be that any lawyer who mentioned it in open court would never, ever be able to try another case.
Among the original proposals for the United States Congress was to have one house -- the Senate -- incapable of initiating legislation. Its sole function was to act as a brake, a barrier, to legislation submitted through the House of Representatives. Eventually England adopted this idea. It was called the Lords' Veto.
I could get behind that.
Francis: corrected, thanks.
Yes, jury nullification is a good idea, but it's not utilized very widely and not well-respected by those in our legal industry. Plus, such juries would only review individual cases; I'd prefer that every law be required to get past a jury before being implemented at all.
I'd prefer that every law be required to get past a jury
Considering how juries are empaneled, I don't think this is a very good idea. Besides, isn't this why we elect legislatures?
Well we'd obviously need a different method than we use for criminal juries, and we'd need larger juries. Maybe 1,000 - 10,000.
And yes, it is why we elect legislatures, but a lot of people in our country seem to be disillusioned with the political process, such as it is.