Final Word on U.S. Law Isn’t: Supreme Court Keeps Editing
nytimes.com
nytimes.com
> There are two exceptions to the general practice of quietly slipping changes into opinions. One happens only after the decisions are published in final form
Maybe the bigger problem is that people are relying "prerelase" documents to be authoritative, when they actually aren't.
Somewhat similar to what happens in medicine though or other disciplines. You learn something in school which isn't always the final say on the subject matter.
Law is something that requires you to be constantly up to date.
The UK Parliament actually has a slightly crazy system of using different coloured marker pens to indicate different revisions at different stages (1st reading, 2nd reading, Commons, Lords etc.). They need version control.
More modern systems just produce omnibus documents at the start of the day/session which have the amendments and consequentials in one place.
Your right parliamentary systems could use a decent electronic system to replace a lot of the paper that is produced - but this would require extra staff working very anti social hours to process everything and put it on the system.
So to get this to happen I think we would first need some kind of version control so easy and compelling that the general public starts using it everywhere, and then maybe we can build enough public pressure to make the legislators use it.
(On the other hand I don't see any reason why judges would be against it for court decisions.)
Probably because a) it seemed like a joke statement b) didn't go into any detail on how git would solve this particular problem.
The Supreme Court has always reversed earlier rulings and changed its opinion with the times. In 1928 (Olmstead v. United States), the Supreme Court ruled that wiretaps did NOT violate the 4th and 5th Amendment. (The argument was that you didn't own the telephone lines, so there was no expectation of privacy). This was more or less confirmed in Goldman v. United States (1942).
It wasn't until 1967 (Katz v. United States) that Wiretaps were declared "search" that required a warrant.
None of these changes were due to Congressional Action. They were all due to Supreme Court cases. And this is why Lawyers are paid a lot of bucks... because its their job to keep up with not only Congressional law, but with Supreme Court rulings (interpretations of law), which can change on the whims of the Supreme Court Justices.
The law is not a democracy, and a 5-4 ruling is the greatest absurdity of this system. Presumably, if another political party was in power for an appointment, the decision may be the exact opposite. If the constitution is so treasured as a framework constraining the powers of the state and guarding the rights of citizens, why is consensus not the only standard for which decisions are made on constitutional matters?
If the constitution is so treasured as a framework constraining the powers of the state and guarding the rights of citizens, why is consensus not the only standard for which decisions are made on constitutional matters?
No offense, but your words sound hugely ignorant of the meaning of the word "Constitution", or the theory of law under which it works.