Why Legislation?

Given that we have courts, why do we need legislation?

 

Law is legislated. No legislation, no law, no need for courts.

 

So, given that we have courts, why do we need legislation?

 

Sort of a chicken or the egg isn’t it?

 

No. Care to explain?

 

A court is intended to uphold law and justice, while the legislature determines the law to uphold. Though I’m unsure if you mean starting now we don’t need legislature, or if it is always unnecessary.

I’m willing to go down the rabbit hole, but I don’t find the idea you’re looking at to be expressed very well.

 

Why do we need courts at all?

Legislators have more power than they do.

 

Its a trick question lol.

The ultimate answer Longshot is looking for is already known but he wants to play the game.

 

Sometimes sophistry leads to something interesting.

 

Too bad that my answer already blew up the question.

If you wish to keep giving typical responses that's up to you but that's all going to be debunked until he drops his response on you.

Do you want to know what that response will be?

 

Sure, you seem anxious to say it.

 

After the game plays out he will simply say that since courts actually make up the legislation as they go that we don't need legislatures.

He believes courts have the ultimate power.

I told him that the legislature has more power than the courts.

That's the debate I want to have.

 

That about what I expected, and is essentially a debate of attrition.

 

If the Supreme Court issued a ruling which says "the first amendment means that Congress can establish a religion and violently suppress any and all speech", there would clearly be a constitutional crisis.

Yet that is one possible (yet highly dubious, openly contradictory) interpretation of the first amendment. The judiciary is supposedly given the power to interpret the constitution. There is no limit on the ridiculousness of their rulings other than the sentiment of the people and the rest of the government.

In such a case, or one where they affirmed their own absolute power over all functions of government at all levels, the other branches of government would presumably refuse to comply.

This was the thinking of Jefferson, who posited all powers that are independent as absolute, and who thought that pernicious judicial review would dampen the ability of the people and their representatives to mount challenges to constitutional overreach.

If, as a legislator, you swore an oath to the constitution, and the court issues a ruling contrary to the constitution (I assume everyone thinks this is possible), do you obey the court or your oath?

 

Do you mean 'why do we need more legislation?' I tend to think we have too many laws already.

 

The question wasn't proposed to think about what would logically happen its to discuss within the realms of our current system who has the most power?

There are really only two aspects here.

Impeachment. The legislature can remove the members of the court indefinitely with a simple vote the court cannot do the same to them.

The court is giving unlimited authority to interpret the constitution but it would have to be at least reasonable. If they say the constitution gives all legislation power to the court they would simply be impeached. If they keep making ridiculous interpretations the legislature could rewrite the constitution to give themselves all the power or to say that the court no longer exists.

Of course if all this went down it wouldn't get that far, there would be riots in the streets or whatever.

But right now the legislature ultimately has more power.

 

What is reasonable? Who decides? Is a ruling that the right to keep and bear arms means Congress can pass a law to confiscate firearms unreasonable? This veers into questions of constitutional crisis - when no branch has a clear mandate and it's up to the people to decide which branch is overstepping the mark.

It is true that the legislature could remove rogue justices from court, but it's also true that the court can remove the legislatures' law from existence by ruling it contrary to higher law, and that this is a power far more often exercised as it does not illicit a constitutional crisis.

The power to nullify all legislation at all levels of government is far more powerful than the power to remove justices.

Personally I think this is all a moot question. All branches of government have grown immeasurably. The executive the most by a country mile. Most of the legislative growth in power has been to empower the executive bureaucracy. Unlike the courts, Congress has been keen to delegate or otherwise abdicate as many of their powers as they can to the executive, the courts, anyone but themselves.

The Courts haven't done much bloating for a long time. This is a problem going back to 1803, while Congress and the executive gained most of their bloated powers in the early-mid 20th century.

 

Because my question is about who has the most power right now, without anything happening?

The answer is the legislature does.

The legislature can rewrite the constitution, the court cannot.

If the court unreasonably interprets it they can be impeached.

The court cannot impeach the legislature for how they choose to rewrite it.

 

Because . . . separation of powers? That's like asking, since we have the Executive, why have legislation?

 

They can amend through reinterpretation.

Removing judges for bad decisions is a very, very difficult thing to to do. Ruling legislation unconstitutional when it's not happens all the time.

Changing the constitution is even more difficult, requiring supermajorities in states and the Congress.

The court has very considerable powers just a pen stroke away.

 

And if the legislature doesn't like that interpretation that can remove the judges and delete their ruling by appointing judges that change it.

The court can't do anything to stop the legislature.

I never said it would be easy I am saying the system is in place to give the legislature more power at this point.

 

I may have phrased my question incorrectly. Let's say that Joe and Bill have some sort of dispute. Joe sues Bill. Why is there any need for legislation in this particular instance?

 

If there is no legislation then what is he suing about?

That's like asking if morality exists.

It doesn't until other people define what it is and those other people in our case are the legislature.

 

Well, what the hell is he suing him for?

 

Let's say that Joe sues Bill because Bill broke Joe's leg. That might be something for which Joe sues Bill.