Subject:
|
Re: Overview of Changes to Legal Rights
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 12 Sep 2002 01:25:30 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
393 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Mike Petrucelli writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> > http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/wire/sns-ap-sept-11-legal-rights-glanc • e0905sep05.story
> >
> > Not particularly heartening.
>
> I am curious as to how far along that bill is. I would find it very hard to
> believe that Congress would pass that. Even if they did, I would find it
> extremely hard to believe that the Supreme Court would NOT rule it
> unconstitutional.
Actually, as soon as it gets passed, the Supreme Court couldn't rule it
unconstitutional. They can't do that until it is an issue in a case they
hear. We would have to wait for somebody to be arrested via a law enacted
by that bill. Then they could proceed to send a writ of certatia to the
Supreme Court (that's basically a formal letter asking the court to hear the
case). After the Court hears the case could they then declare the laws in
the bill to be unconstitutional.
> Blatant attacks on freedom like that would likely start a
> civil war. Yeah, there's something we all need. (Oh by the way, I was being
> sarcastic.)
>
> -Mike Petrucelli
Kyle Henneberque
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Overview of Changes to Legal Rights
|
| (...) I am curious as to how far along that bill is. I would find it very hard to believe that Congress would pass that. Even if they did, I would find it extremely hard to believe that the Supreme Court would NOT rule it unconstitutional. Blatant (...) (22 years ago, 11-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
4 Messages in This Thread:
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
