LawTalkers  

Go Back   LawTalkers

» Site Navigation
 > FAQ
» Online Users: 920
0 members and 920 guests
No Members online
Most users ever online was 6,698, 04-04-2025 at 04:12 AM.
View Single Post
Old 02-27-2004, 09:30 PM   #2592
Not Me
Too Lazy to Google
 
Not Me's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 4,460
It's sort of like watching a revolution start

Quote:
Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
Marbury doesn't exempt officials in the executive or legislative branch from constitutional interpretation.
It doesn't authorize them to blatantly violate statutes, either, by substituting their own constitutional interpretation for the explicit wording of statutes. Last I checked, prop 22 is the law of California. It is explicit. For him to have thumbed his nose at that is outrageous.

Moreover, all of his arguments can apply to polygamy, so if he denies any polygamist from getting a marriage license, is he authorized to make that determination, too? Is that how we want our country run, by mayors blatantly violating statutes under the guise that they believe that the statute is unconstitutional and then selectively violating that statute only for specific groups that the mayor thinks are being discriminated against?

That isn't how things work in this country and you know it. You just happen to agree with him on this so you try to make it out as if he is serving some higher purpose.

What if a mayor in rural Utah decides that discriminating against polygamists violates the Utah constitution and starts giving out polygamous marriage licenses? Would you stand up for that, too?

Quote:
Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
By your reasoning, Congress could ignore the constitution and pass blatantly violative laws, on the theory that the job of determining whether they're OK is the courts'.
What I said doesn't even apply to a legislative body. Congress doesn't enforce the law, the executive branch does. Congress just makes the law. And Congress considering what is constitutional and what is not before it passes a law is very different from an executive branch official choosing to violate a statute because he personally believes that it is unconstitutional.

Quote:
Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
And Newsom has brought an action in state court, and made clear that he will abide by the court's ruling.
Then he needed to wait for the court ruling before rewriting the law himself and high-jacking the county clerk's office like that.
__________________
IRL I'm Charming.

Last edited by Not Me; 02-27-2004 at 09:50 PM..
Not Me is offline  
 
Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.0.1

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:27 AM.