Quote:
Originally Posted by Damien
Seems a good idea; the only thing is how would you define 'ordinary'. These people would be responsible for checking laws ensuring they serve the public and do not sacrifice liberty, safety, or otherwise unduly infringe upon the public in a way that outweighs the benefits of the law.
I would want the upper-chamber to be qualified to make these decisions; I think we often forget how difficult government must be. While there are not necessary any checks on suitability now, I think in most cases we elect people who have the intellect, if not always the competence, to make these choices.
Selecting ‘ordinary’ people would be a bad idea unless we select smart, responsible people.
|
Exactly, something along these lines would be a disaster if people were recruited as they are for jury duty, also what would worry me is how politically neutral any such person would be.