zlacker

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.

>>pjlega+(OP)
Interesting how you consistently prompt questions without making declarative statements of your own beliefs.

Of course there is logic and standards. Such as my logic that sports betting on individual plays is more conducive to corruption and more numerous than whole-game outcomes, thus more appropriate for regulation.

The constitution was written in the aftermath of a might-makes-right event called a war. Among other things, it puts in place certain rules more protected than others, to add some order to the chaos and protect minoruty interests.