Subject:
|
Re: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 28 Jul 2004 13:09:48 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2745 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek wrote:
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Laswell wrote:
| |
If a state declares it illegal, it’s illegal.
|
Unless the state declares something illegal that it is unconstitutional to so
declare. For example, if a particular state prevented the right of free
assembly or free association, that would be unconstitutional. The supremes
might not rule on it on the first try, until someone brought a properly
construed test case that they could not decide more narrowly, but lets not
confuse defacto with dejure.
| |
| |
Wrong again. It is the judical branch’s right and responsibility to strike
down any law which is unconstitutional.
|
Until such time as the Judiciary does strike it down,
|
Or a jury nullfies it.
| |
you can be prosecuted
and sentanced under that law.
|
Defacto, yes. It still may be unconstitutional though.
|
A great example of this is currently in the offing, much to the
disgust of
Justice O’Connor. The ruling may undo thousands of sentences because the
methods by which those sentences were imposed has been identified as
unconstitutional. That means that the correction of those sentences must be
implemented retroactively to the time they were imposed, and Justice O’Connor
fears that this will place an unbearable burden on the court system.
So it’s not simply a matter of “now the practice is unconstitutional, so no one
else gets sentenced that way.” Rather, it’s a case of “we have identified it as
unconstitutional, so any sentences thus far imposed under the practice must be
re-examined and potentially thrown out.”
Dave!
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
200 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
