S&S Poll: Should legislation be constitutionally scrutinised?

[afleitch]

Junkie's Atlasian Law Journal is, without a doubt one of the most fascinating reads in Atlasia. That man has a great skill and an eye for detail. Spectator and Society asks if there should be a 'panel' established to scrutinse legislation as an when it is tabled, or after it is passed to ensure it is constitutional and/or follows precedent as established by the Supreme Court. Indeed could the Supreme Court be charged with being that 'panel' ? This may be something for the ConCon, but we would be really interested in your views on this matter.

[Oakvale]

This seems like a good idea, and I wouldn't be adverse to giving the Supreme Court a little more to do by having them act as said "panel".

Hell, I don't know why no-one's appointed Junkie himself to the Supreme Court.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     I would like to see somebody do that in an unofficial role, though I fear that making the Supreme Court do it would be a much heavier workload than any of the justices signed on for & making somebody else do it would be interpreted as usurping the Supreme Court's authority.

[Barnes]

I wish there were a few more poll options.

I mean, I think this is already handled by the Supreme Court through Judicial review.

However, if you want the process to be automatic, perhaps the creation of some form of "Constitutional Court"?

[RIP Robert H Bork]

No, we already have a Supreme Court to do such things.

[Marokai Backbeat]

No, we already have a Supreme Court to do such things.

[bullmoose88]

Its the Supreme Court's job to determine the constitutionality of legislation once it is challenged in court.  Not on second beforehand.

Legislators would be wise to generally consider if their proposed legislation's constitutionality would be upheld on a challenge (and craft it accordingly) BUT it is appropriate for legislators to propose and pass legislation which is seemingly unconstitutional at passage if they hold a good faith belief that the court might potentially find it constitutional (or change common law to do so).

[afleitch]

Thank you for the responses people

[Junkie]

I do not think there should be a "Constitutional Panel."  If one were to be created, in my opinion, the Supreme Court should not be involved as that would be a conflict of the purpose of the separation of powers.  The duty of the Supreme Court is to determine whether a law is constitutional once it has been brought to them.

I do believe however that there should be constitutional review by the Senate when considering every bill and by the President before he signs it.  For the President, I do believe that the Attorney General could easily fill this position.  Maybe the Senate should create a Senate Counsel position that could create an opinion.  Obviously Senators would be free to reach their own opinions, but it may help give guidance.