poly lawyers - quick question

[Asher]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker


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.

1. You're letting your school define you!
2. the shame.

[Krill]

(post to check my location field)

[Krill]

See, I used to have Durham in my location field, I don't let that define me anymore!

[Krill]

Then again, the mods probably don't like the current definition either...

[chequita guevara]

While philosophically, I agree with Kuci that Congress ought not to be able to pass unconstitutional laws, allowing anyone to see over an unenforced law without showing actual harm would swamp the government with lawsuits.

[Kuciwalker]

I didn't say that, nor was I proposing that it should be that way. I just said that currently there are cases where you can sue prior to actual enforcement.

[Wiglaf]

Enforcement is a weird way of framing it. Better to say that a suit is impossible without injury. You can be injured and not be in jail or fined or whatever 'enforcement' implies.

[Krill]

I think that was the first relatively sane post I've seen you make Wiggy congrats

[snoopy369]

I think that JM is effectively right, in that Congress' job is not to decide what is constitutional; so if they think a law should be passed, they should pass it. It's the court's job to decide what is constitutional. If Congress starts to determine things are or are not constitutional, then it's stepping on the Judicial prerogative.

That said, Congress shouldn't waste the Court's time passing things that are blatantly unconstitutional, as that's just dumb.

[Darius871]

Originally posted by Wiglaf
Enforcement is a weird way of framing it. Better to say that a suit is impossible without injury. You can be injured and not be in jail or fined or whatever 'enforcement' implies.

Bingo!

The easiest examples are Takings Clause cases where the plaintiff hasn't faced any "enforcement" by the state but nonetheless is "injured" by diminution of his/her property's fair market value by limitations on its use.

Say for instance that a city ordinance prohibits any development on your land because Elvis once walked on it. Even though you haven't started construction and been stopped by the city, you could still sue for the injury of your land having been made relatively worthless.

In that sense Kuci wins, unless the likelihood of future enforcement is considered enforcement in itself.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Wiglaf
Enforcement is a weird way of framing it.

Someone hacked Wiggy's account.

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by snoopy369
I think that JM is effectively right, in that Congress' job is not to decide what is constitutional; so if they think a law should be passed, they should pass it. It's the court's job to decide what is constitutional. If Congress starts to determine things are or are not constitutional, then it's stepping on the Judicial prerogative.

That said, Congress shouldn't waste the Court's time passing things that are blatantly unconstitutional, as that's just dumb.

While Congress doesn't have the authority to decide what is constitutional, they'd better be aware of what is unconstitutional. They take an oath to uphold the Constitution, and if they knowingly violate it: (a) they should be impeached and thrown out of office; and (b) if they swore "so help me God," they have even a Higher Authority to answer to.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Zkribbler


While Congress doesn't have the authority to decide what is constitutional, they'd better be aware of what is unconstitutional. They take an oath to uphold the Constitution, and if they knowingly violate it: (a) they should be impeached and thrown out of office; and (b) if they swore "so help me God," they have even a Higher Authority to answer to.

Wait. What body impeaches them?

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by snoopy369
I think that JM is effectively right, in that Congress' job is not to decide what is constitutional;

Actually, it's the job of all three branches of government to decide what is or is not constitutional.

[Kuciwalker]

Thank you, che. It is a common misconception that it is solely the judiciary's job to interpret the Constitution. Rather, the Supreme Court is just the final arbiter of that interpretation.