Edit - Law Stack Exchange

You are not logged in. Your edit will be placed in a queue until it is peer reviewed.

We welcome edits that make the post easier to understand and more valuable for readers. Because community members review edits, please try to make the post substantially better than how you found it, for example, by fixing grammar or adding additional resources and hyperlinks.

Rev

Interesting. A law that effectively nullifies a constitutional provision would usually be invalidated. So the problem with copyright is not that effectively does not count but that the court decided that there is not effective nullification. Thanks!
– sds
Commented Dec 1, 2016 at 14:00
Note on the above - Article 3 contains the "case or controversy" clause which says Federal courts can only hear cases, and only if a genuine dispute between 2 parties exists. So they can't just give advisory opinions, or escalate a case when neither party chooses to appeal a decision.
– Stilez
Commented Dec 8, 2016 at 4:27
Absolutely, although I wouldn't definitely rule out the constitutionality of a process like current audits of bankruptcy court cases and the French practice of auditing some percentage cases which aren't appealed, in each case primarily to protect the integrity of the process, and at least potentially reopening those cases if irregularities are found.
– ohwilleke
Commented Dec 8, 2016 at 5:36

Add a comment |

Correct minor typos or mistakes
Clarify meaning without changing it
Add related resources or links
Always respect the author’s intent
Don’t use edits to reply to the author

create code fences with backticks ` or tildes ~
```
like so
```
add language identifier to highlight code
```python
def function(foo):
print(foo)
```
put returns between paragraphs
for linebreak add 2 spaces at end
_italic_ or **bold**
quote by placing > at start of line
to make links (use https whenever possible)
<https://example.com>
[example](https://example.com)
<a href="https://example.com">example</a>

formatting help »
answering help »