Problem with random draw would be
1) the review, who is fit to server?
2) the people, we can hardly get people to sit for jurry dutie let alone take
4-6 years out of thier life for a legislative position.
As for term limits, I am mixed - I say four terms should be the limit. That
way bad ones eventualy have to leave and good ones can be more then a flash in
the pan.
On Mon, 2 May 2005
FoulDragon@aol.com wrote:
> I can see jury nullification as a valuable tool in situations where a direct
> approach will take a long time. It's potentially a stopgap answer.
>
> For example, I'm fairly certain that if clear heads could talk rationally,
> we'd probably not be classing pot as the serious drug it's filed as now.
> However, doing so may take years, as nobody wants to admit the drugs won the drug
> war. In that case, the best we can do is try and prevent lives from being
> damaged by the law one at a time-- IOW, nulling the law at the jury box.
>
> Similarly, it might be the answer for the present, clearly stilted IP regime,
> cos while it's not reflective of most Americans' views, it is representative
> of a small segment which has a massive swing over the legislators.
>
> Perhaps we need a new model for lawmaking. Maybe random-draw for staffing
> the legislatures, one term only, so there's no campaign finance for problems.
> For accountability, how about strapping them in an electric chair and giving
> them shocks proportional to their approval rating.
>
---------------------------------------------------
PLUG-discuss mailing list -
PLUG-discuss@lists.plug.phoenix.az.us
To subscribe, unsubscribe, or to change you mail settings:
http://lists.PLUG.phoenix.az.us/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss
(text/plain)