POV-Ray : Newsgroups : povray.off-topic : How is this even possible? : Re: How is this even possible? Server Time
28 Jul 2024 20:25:04 EDT (-0400)
  Re: How is this even possible?  
From: Kenneth
Date: 12 Dec 2012 18:25:01
Message: <web.50c9118cf3a8df2fc2d977c20@news.povray.org>
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

Copyright 2003-2023 Persistence of Vision Raytracer Pty. Ltd.