 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 12.12.2012 18:45, schrieb Warp:
> 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.
Well, I guess it's a matter of taste, whether a constitution should
prevent *passing* an anticonstitutional law, or whether it should
prevent *enforcing* such a law.
It seems that Europe favors the former flavor, whether America favors
the latter.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Kevin Wampler <nob### [at] nowherenet> wrote:
>
> My understanding is that enforcing this would be a matter of
> constitutional interpretation, and would thus fall under the judicial
> branch. Thus for the judicial branch to rule the clause in the North
> Carolina constitution invalid, a case would actually need to be brought
> to the court. So long as North Caroline doesn't bother to enforce that
> clause, that's unlikely to happen, so the clause remains.
Yes, it's a very odd system IMO. Funny thing is, we kids brought up in the US
are led to believe, early on in school, that 'bad laws don't get passed' (to put
it simply.) Only *much* later does the reality of the situation sink in, that an
individual state can pass just about any law, bad or good--AND put it into
practice. Then, only if it's *challenged" by someone or some group afterward,
does it go up the legal-chain-of-command (possibly all the way to the Supreme
Court--*if* it decides to hear the case) to decide on the law's actual
constitutionality. The subtlety here is whether it's 'constitutional' or not. If
the law happens to be really bad--but still constitutional, per the Supreme
Court's thinking--then chances are it will remain on the books. The SC decides
these cases based ONLY on whether or not the law violates the constitution in
some way. In essence, a technical argument. And the SC members are certainly
fallible--that's how slavery in the US remained 'legal' for a long time. The
'interpretation' of the constitution is what it's all about, and seems to
'change with the wind' over time.
BTW, the new California law that was just passed--legalizing or de-criminalizing
the possession of marijuana--goes flatly against a seemingly-overarching Federal
law. It's a current example of this State-vs-Federal system that we have. If no
one in California challenges it, then I'm *guessing* it will remain valid. I'm
not sure if the Federal government itself can summarily strike it down simply
because it differs from the 'higher' law.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 12 Dec 2012 18:21:48 -0500, Kenneth wrote:
> BTW, the new California law that was just passed--legalizing or
> de-criminalizing the possession of marijuana--goes flatly against a
> seemingly-overarching Federal law.
Was there a law in CA passed about this? I only heard of the ones in CO
and WA....
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Dec 2012 18:21:48 -0500, Kenneth wrote:
>
> > BTW, the new California law that was just passed--legalizing or
> > de-criminalizing the possession of marijuana--goes flatly against a
> > seemingly-overarching Federal law.
>
> Was there a law in CA passed about this? I only heard of the ones in CO
> and WA....
>
Yep, it just happened last week, I believe. The interesting thing about
California's version (don't know about the CO and MA versions) is that CA plans
to do this with all the legal 'niceties'--taxing it like cigarettes, etc. In
other words, putting a well-thought-out 'system' in place for its regulated
sale. It will be interesting to find out if these various state laws actually
push the Federal government to change or modify it's current (and, IMO,
draconian) laws regarding marijuana. (Or, conversely, to come down on these new
laws with two big feet!) Right now in the US, there are just too many
'zero-tolerance' State and Federal laws on the books, about many things. (And,
alas, supported by many people.) The US needs to lighten up a bit! ;-)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 12 Dec 2012 18:49:59 -0500, Kenneth wrote:
> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> On Wed, 12 Dec 2012 18:21:48 -0500, Kenneth wrote:
>>
>> > BTW, the new California law that was just passed--legalizing or
>> > de-criminalizing the possession of marijuana--goes flatly against a
>> > seemingly-overarching Federal law.
>>
>> Was there a law in CA passed about this? I only heard of the ones in
>> CO and WA....
>>
>>
> Yep, it just happened last week, I believe. The interesting thing about
> California's version (don't know about the CO and MA versions) is that
> CA plans to do this with all the legal 'niceties'--taxing it like
> cigarettes, etc. In other words, putting a well-thought-out 'system' in
> place for its regulated sale. It will be interesting to find out if
> these various state laws actually push the Federal government to change
> or modify it's current (and, IMO, draconian) laws regarding marijuana.
> (Or, conversely, to come down on these new laws with two big feet!)
> Right now in the US, there are just too many 'zero-tolerance' State and
> Federal laws on the books, about many things. (And, alas, supported by
> many people.) The US needs to lighten up a bit! ;-)
Heh, I've thought so for years. Are you familiar with Randy Cassingham
and "This is TRUE"? He regularly does essays/stories on zero tolerance
gone awry, and combines a good bit of humour in tacking the subject.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> > Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> Heh, I've thought so for years. Are you familiar with Randy Cassingham
> and "This is TRUE"? He regularly does essays/stories on zero tolerance
> gone awry, and combines a good bit of humour in tacking the subject.
>
Nope, but I'll take a look. We *need* some humor in the US these days!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 12/12/2012 3:49 PM, Kenneth wrote:
> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> On Wed, 12 Dec 2012 18:21:48 -0500, Kenneth wrote:
>>
>>> BTW, the new California law that was just passed--legalizing or
>>> de-criminalizing the possession of marijuana--goes flatly against a
>>> seemingly-overarching Federal law.
>>
>> Was there a law in CA passed about this? I only heard of the ones in CO
>> and WA....
>>
>
> Yep, it just happened last week, I believe. The interesting thing about
> California's version (don't know about the CO and MA versions) is that CA plans
> to do this with all the legal 'niceties'--taxing it like cigarettes, etc. In
> other words, putting a well-thought-out 'system' in place for its regulated
> sale. It will be interesting to find out if these various state laws actually
> push the Federal government to change or modify it's current (and, IMO,
> draconian) laws regarding marijuana. (Or, conversely, to come down on these new
> laws with two big feet!) Right now in the US, there are just too many
> 'zero-tolerance' State and Federal laws on the books, about many things. (And,
> alas, supported by many people.) The US needs to lighten up a bit! ;-)
>
>
Actually, every state could pass such a law, and technically, the fed
could still ignore it, because of how it is "classified" in the drug
list. The only way to change that would be to, in effect, pass a federal
referendum, or something like that (I am not quite sure how it works),
which would "reclassify" it as a less dangerous drug.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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] nospamcom> 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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 12/12/2012 10:21 AM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Dec 2012 09:45:58 -0800, Patrick Elliott wrote:
>
>> Because, being a citizen and/or resident of the state, for some damn
>> reason, doesn't qualify you as "having standing".
>
> Well, no, it depends on whether or not you can demonstrate that you are
> harmed by that law. That's one of the questions before SCOTUS with the
> Prop 8 case out of California - do those who appealed even have standing
> to appeal? General wisdom is no, they don't, because they're not harmed
> by Judge Walker's ruling.
>
> Jim
>
Uh, yeah.. And, they get to define what ever the F "harm" is, and isn't,
more or less.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Patrick Elliott <kag### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> >
> 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.)
Funny!
To our great chagrin, there is no 'intelligence test' for US politicians. ANY
idiot can be one. The Congress has more than it's fair share of 'em. It's the
only institution I can think of where a 'worker' doesn't actually have to know
anything to work there. He just has to get elected. Find enough like-minded (or
similarly brain-dead) folks to vote for you, and your in.
Ah, democracy--what a concept.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
