Subject:
|
Re: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 28 Jul 2004 18:43:49 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
3292 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek wrote:
> You can say that something is defacto constitutional prior to being struck if
> you like, I suppose, but if it is struck, it never really WAS constitutional.
Here’s a convoluted but well-intended hypothetical (with a hugely compressed
timeframe). Let’s say Guy A commits an act in January that’s against State Law
X, he’s convicted, and he’s sentenced to 10 years in the big house. He appeals
on the grounds that State Law X is unconstitutional, his appeal goes to the
Supreme Court, and the Supremes agree, striking down State Law X in April. Now
let’s suppose that Legislator Q gets it in his head that State Law X needs to be
enshrined in the Constitution, that he initiates the process to that effect, and
that the states ratify the amendment in October.
Questions:
Is the stricken-down State Law X automatically reinstated upon the ratification
of the amendment, or must it go through the whole legislative process again from
scratch?
If Guy A’s conviction is thrown out in April but the amendment is ratified in
October, can he be re-convicted, or is he off the hook (double jeopardy and
whatnot)?
If Guy A’s appeal doesn’t go before the Supremes until November (after the
amendment has been ratified) can the Supremes still rule that, at the time of
the conviction, the law was unconstitutional, thereby striking down his
conviction even though the law is constitutional based on the new amendment?
By extension, if other people have been convicted under the same law that Guy A
is appealing, some of them perhaps months or years before, could their
convictions also be thrown out despite the new amendment?
I guess this is mainly a variation on the idea of “ex post facto” which, if
memory serves, means that laws enacted on a certain date cannot be retroactively
applied to acts commited prior to that date. Is this definition correct?
Part of the reason I ask is because Michael Powell and The New Puritans have
called for enormous (and, I’d say, ridiculous) fines against Howard Stern and
Bono for utterances dating back months/years prior to the establishment of the
new “indecency” fines (astute readers will recall that the Senate was working on
this very legislation on the day that Cheney showed off his potty mouth). I may
be incorrect in my understanding--perhaps the existing law allowed the FCC to
apply fines at whatever level if felt was appropriate, and it simply upped the
Ante in the wake of Janet's World-Shattering Breast.
Interestingly, Oprah, on the same day that Howard was slapped with the fine, had
a much more spectacularly graphic television program than anything Howard’s ever
done, yet Oprah hasn’t been fined. Hmm…
Speaking of indecency, I discovered an amusing, newly-coined definition of
“Santorum” on the internet. With your parents’ permission, you might try
searching for “Santorum” on Google. Check out the very first page that comes
up.
Dave!
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
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
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
