|
 |
On 12/12/2012 10:19 AM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Dec 2012 12:45:12 -0500, Warp wrote:
>
>> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospam com> wrote:
>>> Any law can be passed, it's up to someone who wouldn't meet the
>>> criteria to challenge it in court.
>>
>> But I thought the whole idea of a constitution is that
>> anticonstitutional laws can *not* be passed.
>
> No - at least not in the US - laws are passed and then are challenged as
> to whether or not they are constitutional. Lawmakers don't judge the
> constitutionality of laws they write (though ideally they should create
> laws with an awareness of the constitution) - the judicial branch is
> responsible for making that evaluation, and they only do so on laws that
> have been passed.
>
> Jim
>
This, of course, would imply actually knowing what is in the
constitution, which is kind of hard, when you get senators claiming
things are in it that are not, other things are not, which are, and
confusing it with other documents (declaration of independence, being
one, though.. I think there was one moron suggesting that the Magna
Carta was a founding document, if not actually part of the constitution
a while back too.)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
