peacefuljeffrey
member
Jeeper wrote:
Yes, there has been recent coverage of crimes against kids. Does that mean that the example has to be made out of a non-applying situation? Should we throw the book at a jaywalker and put him in prison for five years to "make an example" to red-light runners? Where's the logical connection? If he is an example here, he is an example to others who might grab a kid by the arm, because that's what he did. He is not an "example" to child molesters, because he didn't DO that!
Take my example again. The Congress passes a law that says, "The people may not petition the government for redress of grievances."
Can you not say, WITHOUT WAITING FOR THE USSC TO SAY IT, that this law IS NOT CONSTITUTIONAL!?
There is no equivocation necessary. While it may be a bit clearer of a decision than many constitutionality questions typically are, it underscores the truth that laws can be clearly unconstitutional without having been found so by the USSC. Where is it written in the U.S. Constitution that all laws are to be deemed constitutional until and unless they have been deemed unconstitutional by the USSC?
As far as I am educated about it, the USSC did not even always enjoy the role as "official arbiter of the Constitutionality of laws." In fact, lower (state) courts CAN and DO ALSO throw out laws as unconstitutional!
-Jeffrey
With all the recent coverage of crimes against kids the DA wanted to make a statement with this. The guy got bent over. I think the law is inane as applied but still within Illinois right to create.
Yes, there has been recent coverage of crimes against kids. Does that mean that the example has to be made out of a non-applying situation? Should we throw the book at a jaywalker and put him in prison for five years to "make an example" to red-light runners? Where's the logical connection? If he is an example here, he is an example to others who might grab a kid by the arm, because that's what he did. He is not an "example" to child molesters, because he didn't DO that!
Quote:
There is a big segment of society that defines Constitutionality by SCOTUS decisions, or the lack thereof.
To have a society governed by law there must be a final authority on what is constitutional. That is SCOTUS. A civilized society couldnt be had without a final say.
Take my example again. The Congress passes a law that says, "The people may not petition the government for redress of grievances."
Can you not say, WITHOUT WAITING FOR THE USSC TO SAY IT, that this law IS NOT CONSTITUTIONAL!?
There is no equivocation necessary. While it may be a bit clearer of a decision than many constitutionality questions typically are, it underscores the truth that laws can be clearly unconstitutional without having been found so by the USSC. Where is it written in the U.S. Constitution that all laws are to be deemed constitutional until and unless they have been deemed unconstitutional by the USSC?
THere reason was that there is an outlet to redress the constitutionality of the law. You need to follow the process.
As far as I am educated about it, the USSC did not even always enjoy the role as "official arbiter of the Constitutionality of laws." In fact, lower (state) courts CAN and DO ALSO throw out laws as unconstitutional!
-Jeffrey