"Whoever happens to be in power" already decides what's legal or illegal. That's what being in power means. No one respects a piece of paper; power ultimately comes down to the ability to exert force to see the decrees of the powerful imposed. If this isn't underneath the covers somewhere, the power moves to someone who does have this ability.
There's already a huge amount of finagling by powerful individuals and groups in our government, they just have a lot of pomp and circumstance to try to cover it up. Removing some of the formalities makes flexibility more accessible.
Sure, you can spend the millions of dollars it takes to successfully lobby Congress if you're a big multinational corporation. If you're a niche concern, you're stuck.
Everyone hates mandatory minimum sentences these days. They were put in for a lot of drug crimes in the late 80s-early 90s, and they result in a lot of unneeded incarcerations, not only costing the taxpayer a lot of money, but costing society, family, and community the participation and productivity of someone who would be much more beneficial outside than in. Because of our rigid legal traditions, mandatory minimums must be enforced regardless of circumstances.
When you get down to the bottom of it, no matter what system of governance you have, you need its administrators to be benevolent and wise to get desirable outcomes. I believe that more local authorities are more able to make wise decisions because they not only know the area more intimately, but are more impacted by the outcomes. A far-off judge doesn't care if he sends 40% of the community to jail. A local judge does.
This is kind of like being entitled to being judged by a jury of your peers. Peers know the cultural norms and the local expectations. High-powered attorneys sitting on a bench in Washington, D.C. may not.
There's already a huge amount of finagling by powerful individuals and groups in our government, they just have a lot of pomp and circumstance to try to cover it up. Removing some of the formalities makes flexibility more accessible.
Sure, you can spend the millions of dollars it takes to successfully lobby Congress if you're a big multinational corporation. If you're a niche concern, you're stuck.
Everyone hates mandatory minimum sentences these days. They were put in for a lot of drug crimes in the late 80s-early 90s, and they result in a lot of unneeded incarcerations, not only costing the taxpayer a lot of money, but costing society, family, and community the participation and productivity of someone who would be much more beneficial outside than in. Because of our rigid legal traditions, mandatory minimums must be enforced regardless of circumstances.
When you get down to the bottom of it, no matter what system of governance you have, you need its administrators to be benevolent and wise to get desirable outcomes. I believe that more local authorities are more able to make wise decisions because they not only know the area more intimately, but are more impacted by the outcomes. A far-off judge doesn't care if he sends 40% of the community to jail. A local judge does.
This is kind of like being entitled to being judged by a jury of your peers. Peers know the cultural norms and the local expectations. High-powered attorneys sitting on a bench in Washington, D.C. may not.