|
any other americans find HR 418 as scary as I do? (n/t) | by tesla_koil | 2007-08-08 11:05:15 |
|
In a brief look at it it does have a lot of good | by classic_jon | 2007-08-08 11:17:43 |
|
I took a very quick skim of the bill | by voxwoman | 2007-08-08 11:34:16 |
|
Right, I would be more comfortable with some kind | by classic_jon | 2007-08-08 11:40:55 |
|
this is the specific bit that disturbs me: | by voxwoman | 2007-08-08 11:44:19 |
|
OK I can see your point. | by DesertRat66 | 2007-08-08 11:53:21 |
| I wouldn't know, as my personal dealings |
by voxwoman |
2007-08-08 12:04:59 |
in the courts have only had to do with traffic violations (which seems to work like this: "The more cash you hand over to the municipality, the less severe the penalties").
However, I do think it's a lot harder to get anywhere with the judicial system if you first have to fight the law on constitutional grounds before you can sue for damages, or get an injunction against them doing whatever they want. It's also going to depend on what mood the Supreme Court is in at that moment, too, isn't it? Or can the lower courts throw out federal laws on Constitutional grounds? |
|
[ Reply ] |
|
afaik | by gibuu | 2007-08-08 12:09:12 |
|
Yes, you have it right | by DesertRat66 | 2007-08-08 12:13:25 |
|
Lower courts can toss laws on Constitutional Groun | by DesertRat66 | 2007-08-08 12:11:32 |
|
Addendum | by DesertRat66 | 2007-08-08 14:03:29 |
|
On the other hand, doesn't a ruling about | by Phoon | 2007-08-08 14:07:31 |
|
Not officially | by DesertRat66 | 2007-08-08 14:23:55 |
|
Only an advisory precedent, it wouldn't be binding (n/t) | by imperito | 2007-08-08 14:24:36 |
