Continued Studies - 04/21/2005

PROXIMITY

GESTATION

04-21-2005

Continued Notes

From The

Independent Studies

Of

David A. Archer

02/15/1968

Observations

Pertaining To

Social Consistencies

Within The Idea

Of

Proximity Gestation

(r.f.p.p.s.h.)

4-21-2005

Continuing in “Dread Of Responsibility,” it is put forward in some detail regarding the lack of responsibility in the judicial areas of government. Most times finding the judicial branch awaiting agreement of the other branches on which to render its decisions.

As another experimental thought in exploration, why then shouldn’t the judicial areas as we know them, be augmented in a way as to “remove” them? Replacing them with what would amount to “jury” decisions on a much larger scale in those instances? Replacing the posturing of judges with representatives assistants(or some other organized grouping) in such instances, and similar offices to senators (and as stated, other appointees) who’s responsibility it is to review and pass decisions on any case that is normally in the jurisdiction of judges/courts – which then again reaches another point of review.

The positions could be filled with graduates (or even undergrad students) of law schools at a lower pay scale – some perhaps even interns.

08/12/2006 I find that this line of thought is very similar to current explorations, in regard to the use of “ignorance” within the larger sense of government dynamic. It relegates through the removal of much influence, such decisions to a presumably more “pure” area of society. Theoretically then, getting a better representation of society itself in action. - I will transpose said notes and explorations at a later date.

These new “communities” of persons, would then convene for instance, and exercise the want of the “people” they represent through their affiliation with their senators, representatives and of course from the perspective of interests within the more general public of students of law. Each of course casting their votes on each “case” as it were – each providing written and documented reason in accordance to their decisions and the law (and those they represent), to be read at the “hearing” in a public (standard) court room by other appointed “employees” of the government which could even be minimum wage employees.

No decision making powers would be vested in the “orator” of the decisions, relegating such a perceivably important position safely to the attainability of even the most common citizen. Further rendering the effect in result of “inclusion.” Those “comities” of suggested “law and justice” would already have made the decisions on each case as per their review of the subject matter and concerns, supporting facts and evidence.

It seems that decisions could be made on a much more impartial, impersonal basis. This mostly in reference to those types of decisions that bog the “system” down with the fears of approach in dangers of not getting fair exposure so to speak, or those which could be seen as lesser priority while still qualifying for such attentions. Of course, still being susceptible to further review.

If something similar did come to pass in this country, I feel it would put more focus on the legislative workings and process. It would become more accessible in action and understanding to even the most common people within society. It would become part of each representative/senators day, to confer at least briefly – with such appointees in reference to the subject matter of said “cases.”

It could even make room for another “level” of representation within the government – providing another entire structure of jobs and inter-public relations.