Timeline for How blatant the circumvention of the Constitution has to be for SCOTUS to act?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
11 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dec 11, 2016 at 11:05 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| Dec 11, 2016 at 23:08 | |||||
| Dec 8, 2016 at 5:36 | comment | added | ohwilleke | 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. | |
| Dec 8, 2016 at 4:27 | comment | added | Stilez | 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. | |
| Dec 1, 2016 at 22:12 | history | edited | feetwet♦ | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Copy edits
|
| Dec 1, 2016 at 14:00 | comment | added | sds |
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!
|
|
| Dec 1, 2016 at 13:57 | vote | accept | sds | ||
| Dec 1, 2016 at 5:08 | history | edited | ohwilleke | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 324 characters in body
|
| Dec 1, 2016 at 5:01 | history | edited | ohwilleke | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 124 characters in body
|
| Dec 1, 2016 at 4:55 | history | edited | ohwilleke | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 1572 characters in body
|
| Dec 1, 2016 at 4:40 | history | edited | ohwilleke | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 1087 characters in body
|
| Dec 1, 2016 at 4:28 | history | answered | ohwilleke | CC BY-SA 3.0 |