manhattan23
Member
I have to agree with Brett Bellmore.
The supreme court created the opportunity for congress to ammend the law and specifically define 'any court' to include foreign courts.
The law itself should fail as unconstitutional under due process as Brett said.
In my opinion, they took the easy way out, without creating any really useful far-reaching case law. (ie the law fails the due process test).
Even though I am happy the case law has changed to bar foreign convictions, I agree with Scalia and Thomas' dissent.
The decision has a positive outcome but was done via pure liberal bullcrap.
It all depends on what your definition of 'IS' is.
'Any court' is not vague and easily points to any court. What they should have done is argue that 'any court' is unconstitutional under the due process clause. What that would have done is possibly scrapped the entire law if there was no clause of severability. Perhaps they didn't want the entire federal firearm prohibition to evaporate purely based on an unconstitutional presence of the 'any court' phrase. This lets them just re-define the any court phrase without putting the entire law on the block.
IANAL
-M
The supreme court created the opportunity for congress to ammend the law and specifically define 'any court' to include foreign courts.
The law itself should fail as unconstitutional under due process as Brett said.
In my opinion, they took the easy way out, without creating any really useful far-reaching case law. (ie the law fails the due process test).
Even though I am happy the case law has changed to bar foreign convictions, I agree with Scalia and Thomas' dissent.
The decision has a positive outcome but was done via pure liberal bullcrap.
It all depends on what your definition of 'IS' is.
'Any court' is not vague and easily points to any court. What they should have done is argue that 'any court' is unconstitutional under the due process clause. What that would have done is possibly scrapped the entire law if there was no clause of severability. Perhaps they didn't want the entire federal firearm prohibition to evaporate purely based on an unconstitutional presence of the 'any court' phrase. This lets them just re-define the any court phrase without putting the entire law on the block.
IANAL
-M
