After Hours

General discussion


Question for Maxwell Edison...

By AnsuGisalas ·
Tags: Off Topic
Can you share your knowledge and understanding of the US constitution, a bit?
I was wondering, <a href=;content>elsewhere</a>, about laws that exempt themselves from judicial review... I feel that's a very messed up thing, but do you have a take on it from the constitutional view? Or from the perspective of the historical/ideological/philosophical basis of the constitution? I know the supreme court can scrap an unconstitutional law, but obviously, if exempting a law from judicial review was blatantly and precedentially unconstitutional, even Lieberman wouldn't bother trying.

The rest of you are welcome too, obviously...

This conversation is currently closed to new comments.

Thread display: Collapse - | Expand +

All Comments

Collapse -

This comes

by santeewelding In reply to Question for Maxwell Edis ...

Too late for me, staggering to bed, do I.

Immediately, though, I see cracks in the question itself. I'll review this once upon Maxwell replies, if he does, and if I awake.

Collapse -

The short answer

by maxwell edison In reply to Question for Maxwell Edis ...

American law is not above judicial review. And there is no law that exempts itself from judicial review.

The U.S. Constitution is not law. It's a framework. It's what enumerates the powers which have been granted to the federal government by the people of sovereign states.

In theory, if government makes a law, the purpose of judicial review is to determine if the government (either federal or state) has the power to make and/or enforce said law under those powers enumerated in the Constitution.

Collapse -

As just one example

by maxwell edison In reply to The short answer

There are federal laws that prohibit the possession, sale, and consumption of marijuana. And I've actually heard people say - including, I might add, lawyers (which is extremely troubling to me) - that people don't have a Constitutional right to legally possess and consume marijuana.

But those people have it backwards. The question should be, show me in the constitution the article or amendment which grants to the federal government the power to say one cannot! Unless there's some article or amendment enumerated in the U.S. Constitution that grants to the federal government the power to prohibit such a thing, then such a law should be ruled as unconstitutional.

I'm neither a lawyer nor an activist for the legalization of marijuana, but if it required an amendment (the 18th) to the U.S. Constitution to grant the federal government the power to outlaw the sale and possession of liquor (intoxicating substances), then why shouldn't it take a similar amendment to give them similar power to make law regarding a similar substance?

The 18th amendment, by the way, was repealed by the passage of the 21st amendment fourteen years later.

This is an illustration as to why I think people misunderstand the real intent of the U.S. Constitution, and why I think its intent has been trampled upon. And I'm baffled as to why courts over the years have ruled as constitutional those laws which clearly are not!

Collapse -

It would be interesting

by AnsuGisalas In reply to As just one example

to hear supreme court justices speak on that matter...
I wonder if the three-body problem of person-state-federation has to do with it?
The courts look to the practical, do they not? So what concerns could they be trying to address with those rulings?

I do wonder about the scope of the second amendment, I realize it may have been offensive to you when I've voiced it:
The wording "shall not be infringed" is unbounded... so what is the basis for the rules (that I in my foreign mind imagine must exist) that firearms may not be carried into certain places by just any citizen? Capitol, Supreme Court, Public Schools, The White House... I imagine there are those kinds of rules...

Collapse -

In the USA, Ansu

by NickNielsen In reply to It would be interesting

The courts look to the law, which has nothing to do with the practical.

Collapse -

A stretch, Nick

by santeewelding In reply to In the USA, Ansu

"The Law" is humankind's best shot, codified.

With the exception, I hear, of some new bill pushed by -- I can't remember; Democrat or Republican, that would make blasphemy of that party a death offense.

Collapse -

Don't see where it makes a difference

by NickNielsen In reply to A stretch, Nick

which party is sponsoring THAT bill. They both want it passed.

Collapse -

Lèse majesté

by AnsuGisalas In reply to Don't see where it makes ...

Off wiff their headthphphphph!

Collapse -

It started with the Harrison Act, Max

by NickNielsen In reply to As just one example

It was allegedly a "tax" bill, but the purpose of the <a href=>Harrison Act of 1**4</a> was to ban the importation and sale of opiates. There were racial overtones: "Negro Cocaine 'Fiends' Are New Southern Menace...".

You could only import, sell, or posses opiates for a business reason, and you had to buy a tax stamp. Since there was no legitimate business reason... Legal sleight of hand, not requiring Constitutional amendment. The Supremes, in <a href=>United States v. Doremus, 249 U.S. 86 </a> ruled the act constitutional.

Related Discussions

Related Forums