Timeline for How blatant the circumvention of the Constitution has to be for SCOTUS to act?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
12 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 7, 2018 at 16:47 | history | edited | Jason Aller |
added tag
|
|
| Dec 8, 2016 at 4:16 | comment | added | Stilez | In English, that word "but" has the meaning "except for..." or "other than...". That might help you. | |
| Dec 2, 2016 at 2:01 | comment | added | bwDraco | The SCOTUS (or any federal court, for that matter) does not and cannot act in the absence of a legal dispute of some sort. No federal court is allowed to issue any sort of ruling or opinion outside of a lawsuit; in fact, doing so would itself be a violation of the Constitution. Someone adversely affected by an apparently unconstitutional law would need to file suit in a federal district court to get the judicial review process started. See law.stackexchange.com/questions/14583/… | |
| Dec 1, 2016 at 13:57 | vote | accept | sds | ||
| Dec 1, 2016 at 5:12 | history | edited | ohwilleke |
edited tags
|
|
| Dec 1, 2016 at 4:28 | answer | added | ohwilleke | timeline score: 8 | |
| Dec 1, 2016 at 2:27 | comment | added | phoog | You've misread the text. "But in a manner to be prescribed by law" is related only to "in time of war." So when the country is at war, homeowners can be required to quarter soldiers if the law says so. In a time of peace, no law can require homeowners to do so. | |
| Nov 30, 2016 at 22:13 | answer | added | Dale M♦ | timeline score: 4 | |
| Nov 30, 2016 at 21:39 | history | edited | user6726 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
deleted 7 characters in body
|
| Nov 30, 2016 at 21:35 | history | edited | sds | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
add PS & PPS
|
| Nov 30, 2016 at 21:20 | answer | added | user6726 | timeline score: 2 | |
| Nov 30, 2016 at 21:01 | history | asked | sds | CC BY-SA 3.0 |