Interesting. Do you then view the lawmaking process as nothing more than a chaotic and never-ending expression of the randomly changing emotions of the people?
No ongoing rational standards, logic, or objective argumentation is required or even relevant -- just might makes right, anything goes, whoever convinces the most people to agree through sophistic "advocacy" wins?
I suppose that such a system could exist in theory, but it seems to be heavily at odds with the constitutional legal system that the United States uses.
No ongoing rational standards, logic, or objective argumentation is required or even relevant -- just might makes right, anything goes, whoever convinces the most people to agree through sophistic "advocacy" wins?
I suppose that such a system could exist in theory, but it seems to be heavily at odds with the constitutional legal system that the United States uses.