Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Nope. Having the courts declare the law unconstitutional is already a check on their power. Plus they are protected from arrest by the Speech or Debate Clause of the Constitution. If you don't like them doing it, work on getting them voted out of office.
So it appears I have proposed an unconstitutional law
Right now if an unconstitutional law is passed, it is up to the individual citizen who is affected to try and do something about it, forcing them to deal with a possible arrest and/or the time and money to mount a legal challenge. Meanwhile the lawmakers who proposed and voted for the law get to go on their merry way without the slightest inconvenience.
What if lawmakers had to put their own money and/or liberty on the line? If a law is found to be unconstitutional, the legislators who voted for it suffer some kind of penalty or fine. Could this help keep legislative abuse of power in check?
Joey, understand this: If a lawsuit is brought to declare a law unconstitutional and, if plaintiffs prevail, the court has to award costs and attorney's fees to the person bringing the action. See 42 USC 1988.
So, in that sense, the individual citizen receives some protection from the system.
The concept is that law makers we disagree with can be voted out of office.
Sometimes it is not quite obvious whether a law is unconstitutional or not as reasonable people might have different interpretations. The role of the courts is to interpret the law when there is case or controversy before it brought by someone with legal standing and the case is not moot, ripe or a political question. Consultive opinions are not allowed. Legislators expose themselves to not being elected again if their constituents believe their action prevent them from serving in office again
Sometimes it is not quite obvious whether a law is unconstitutional or not as reasonable people might have different interpretations. The role of the courts is to interpret the law when there is case or controversy before it brought by someone with legal standing and the case is not moot, ripe or a political question. Consultive opinions are not allowed. Legislators expose themselves to not being elected again if their constituents believe their action prevent them from serving in office again
We know how it has been. Some of us are questioning whether that is the right way.
For example, I was a principal in the 11th largest school system in the United States. The system had its own legal team that was "on call" (with central office permission) to principals. It was sure nice to be able to call them when something was "brewing" and find out our legal standing before the **** hit the fan, rather than wait till something was splattered all over the front page. It avoided many a law suit in that school system.
The way we do it in elective government is -- pass a law, get sued, then have the court decided, and meanwhile a mess is created, often involving millions of people that have to wait (in some cases) years to get a decision. That makes no sense to me.
We know how it has been. Some of us are questioning whether that is the right way.
For example, I was a principal in the 11th largest school system in the United States. The system had its own legal team that was "on call" (with central office permission) to principals. It was sure nice to be able to call them when something was "brewing" and find out our legal standing before the **** hit the fan, rather than wait till something was splattered all over the front page. It avoided many a law suit in that school system.
The way we do it in elective government is -- pass a law, get sued, then have the court decided, and meanwhile a mess is created, often involving millions of people that have to wait (in some cases) years to get a decision. That makes no sense to me.
Not really, I mean there is a whole legal team advising legislators and governors or the president who conduct thorough legal analysis before that bill is pass into legislation. Also the Justice Department might give consultive opinions to the Executive. There are public hearings before voting and citizens and organizations can write memorandums questioning or advising that the prospective law might be unconstitutional. The Judiciary is another branch of government not allowed to make consultive opinions. Under the checks and balances principle every branch of government has its role
Right now if an unconstitutional law is passed, it is up to the individual citizen who is affected to try and do something about it, forcing them to deal with a possible arrest and/or the time and money to mount a legal challenge. Meanwhile the lawmakers who proposed and voted for the law get to go on their merry way without the slightest inconvenience.
What if lawmakers had to put their own money and/or liberty on the line? If a law is found to be unconstitutional, the legislators who voted for it suffer some kind of penalty or fine. Could this help keep legislative abuse of power in check?
That's silly.
At the federal level, very few laws are actually found unconstitutional.
At the State level, laws that are found unconstitutional are usually because the language is vague or ambiguous, rather than the spirit of the law being unconstitutional.
I couldn't help but notice you never cited any specific statutes that were over-turned, and that's because you cannot, or because the number is so few it would doom your unsupported claims.
I dare say you'd be totally bewildered and unable to write a constitutional statute, so I'm wondering why you would hold people to an higher standard.
Not really, I mean there is a whole legal team advising legislators and governors or the president who conduct thorough legal analysis before that bill is pass into legislation. Also the Justice Department might give consultive opinions to the Executive. There are public hearings before voting and citizens and organizations can write memorandums questioning or advising that the prospective law might be unconstitutional. The Judiciary is another branch of government not allowed to make consultive opinions. Under the checks and balances principle every branch of government has its role
That is the system and it works, people have the freedom to challenge the law on constitutional grounds and an independent Judiciary is the last i interpreter of the law. That is fundamental to democracy. What is your suggestion to change that?
Right now if an unconstitutional law is passed, it is up to the individual citizen who is affected to try and do something about it, forcing them to deal with a possible arrest and/or the time and money to mount a legal challenge. Meanwhile the lawmakers who proposed and voted for the law get to go on their merry way without the slightest inconvenience.
What if lawmakers had to put their own money and/or liberty on the line? If a law is found to be unconstitutional, the legislators who voted for it suffer some kind of penalty or fine. Could this help keep legislative abuse of power in check?
This makes perfect sense to me
If some idiot ignores the Constitution of doesn't have the civics background to understand it, he/ she should be impeached!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
