poly lawyers - quick question

[Kuciwalker]

If a law has been passed by Congress that, if enforced, would harm someone in an actionable way, that person can generally sue to enjoin enforcement of the law whether or not it has actually been enforced yet, correct?

[Asher]

Two part question:

Part 1: Do you really need to specify Carnegie Mellon in your location field?
Part 2: WTF are you posting this **** at 5am for?

[rah]

I guess that means he doesn't have the knowledge to answer your question.

[Zkribbler]

Re: poly lawyers - quick question

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
If a law has been passed by Congress that, if enforced, would harm someone in an actionable way, that person can generally sue to enjoin enforcement of the law whether or not it has actually been enforced yet, correct?

Your question is a little vague but I'm going to guess yes. Usually, you need a harm, but it sounds like a "chilling effect" might be present here which could constitute the harm.

See a lawyer.

[Jon Miller]

Bumping for more lawyers!

What do you mean by chilling effect?

JM

[Ecthy]

Chilling effect = abstract control of norms?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Re: poly lawyers - quick question

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
If a law has been passed by Congress that, if enforced, would harm someone in an actionable way, that person can generally sue to enjoin enforcement of the law whether or not it has actually been enforced yet, correct?

Depends on the law. Generally you need a harm, which means enforcement, but on some distinct issues you can sue prior to enforcement based either on a chilling effect (rare though), or say, on issues of church/state relations (as a taxpayer you have standing to enjoin anything that violates the disestablishment clause).

More detail

[Wiglaf]

Imran is very smart, and if the Hindus are right we should all try to be more like him next time around.

[Jon Miller]

Could you explain chilling effect in more detail?

JM

[Imran Siddiqui]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chilling_effect_(term)

[Kuciwalker]

Re: Re: poly lawyers - quick question

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Depends on the law. Generally you need a harm, which means enforcement, but on some distinct issues you can sue prior to enforcement based either on a chilling effect (rare though), or say, on issues of church/state relations (as a taxpayer you have standing to enjoin anything that violates the disestablishment clause).

More detail

JM and I have a weird argument and this is a tangential issue. I claim that Congress merely passing an unconstitutional law is unconstitutional (because Congress's powers are basically only to pass constitutional laws; if they pass a law that Congress doesn't let them, they have violated it by definition), whereas JM says it's only unconstitutional to enforce the law. One of my arguments is that you can get a law struck down even if it's not enforced (or hasn't yet gone into effect), which lends credence to my side.

[Kuciwalker]

The larger issue is that I think it is bad for Congress to pass an unconstitutional law even if they don't expect the executive to actually enforce it; this sort of behavior lets Congress pander to the electorate without worrying about the actual consequences of their laws, and weakens respect for the law and the Constitution.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Asher
Two part question:

Part 1: Do you really need to specify Carnegie Mellon in your location field?
Part 2: WTF are you posting this **** at 5am for?

1. No, but I don't see why not to. It is useful context.
2. I was doing analysis hw and got into an argument with JM.

[Jon Miller]

I was saying that the laws couldn't be unconstitutional in and of themselves. That only action can be unconstitutional, an enforced law.

I agree with kuciwalker that it is bad for Congress to pass a bad law, that gets struck down. I just think it is less bad than the president not following the constitution, because it is always based on actions and not theoretical actions. This not only weakens respect for the Law and Constitution, but actively harms the peoples rights (which is what the Constitution is suppose to correct).

The only value of the constitution is in protecting people's rights/etc. If our congress values it highly, but our Presidents ignore it whenever it is convenient, we de facto no longer have it.

This is far worse than Congress making laws that aren't correct (afterall, they aren't high level lawyers) that get struck down. Often while the law is bad, another that is similiar wouldn't be. So we can't look at the number of bad laws passed by congress, and compare them to the seperate types of wrong doing done by the executive (maybe we could compare them to incidents of wrong doing by executive?).

Jon Miller

[Imran Siddiqui]

You guys are silly. FWIW, I think a law isn't unconstitutional until it is struck down. It usually can't be struck down until some action is undertaken, which gives someone standing to challenge it.

Now, that doesn't mean that I don't think laws currently in place violate the constitution according to MY reading of the document, but my reading really doesn't matter to the (at least) 5 Justices who actually decide on this stuff.