(07-24-2018, 02:37 PM)Cormac Wrote: [10:31 AM] Cormac: That said, I'm not sure how to address it, because letting someone interpret "insubstantially different" is going to piss people off if (when really) the court interprets it too broadly and strikes down a law that is in most people's view substantially different.
[10:32 AM] Cormac: If a Delegate has a specific problem with a bill, vetoes it, the author corrects the problem, but the problem and its correction doesn't make the bill substantially different... I trust you see where I'm going here.
I'm not disagreeing that this might be a potential problem, but this seems like a very flawed way to fix it. I don't have any other ideas though, so at this point I'm wondering if we should just not do anything and simply continue voting down legislation if someone continually submits it until they finally stop, or if we should go with your suggestion despite the flaws of leaving "insubstantially different" to judicial interpretation. I'm honestly not sure what the best course of action is, so I hope to hear from others.
It isn't a perfect solution, but if the court makes an unpopular ruling through bad faith, the assembly does have the means to respond-it can remove court justices. The court is already capable of striking down laws as a result of their interpretation of the constitution-all this does is add one more just cause for doing so. There is an implicit trust in the court's ability to interpret these things in good faith.