Ah, you folks DO realize, don't you, that the supreme court does not NEED to reverse Heller and MacDonald. All they have to do is refuse to hear challenges to legislation that might be perceived as going against Heller and MacDonald. If SCOTUS refuses to hear a challenge to a statute then BY DEFAULT that statute stands and is effectively ruled "constitutional". It's similar to a President's "pocket veto".
There is an additional benefit to refusing to hear a challenge to a statute. IIRC, such a refusal would not necessarily generate a precedent. That would mean that challenges to similar legislation would of necessity have to take the maximum time to be resolved.
There is no longer any need to amend the constitution. Congress can legislate on anything it chooses and SCOTUS need only refuse to hear a challenge for that legislation to be effectively "constitutional".
Madison described the problem in Federalist #51 "In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself." Clearly our current administration feels no such "obligation". I believe that situations just as what we are experiencing now were what Madison was referring to when he wrote in that same Federalist #51 that "experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions."
Whenever I hear about possible stupidity from the Supreme Court I want to re-read my copy of The Pelican Brief. Just being helpful by passing along some random thoughts and promoting a GOOD BOOK.
2 comments:
Ah, you folks DO realize, don't you, that the supreme court does not NEED to reverse Heller and MacDonald. All they have to do is refuse to hear challenges to legislation that might be perceived as going against Heller and MacDonald. If SCOTUS refuses to hear a challenge to a statute then BY DEFAULT that statute stands and is effectively ruled "constitutional". It's similar to a President's "pocket veto".
There is an additional benefit to refusing to hear a challenge to a statute. IIRC, such a refusal would not necessarily generate a precedent. That would mean that challenges to similar legislation would of necessity have to take the maximum time to be resolved.
There is no longer any need to amend the constitution. Congress can legislate on anything it chooses and SCOTUS need only refuse to hear a challenge for that legislation to be effectively "constitutional".
Madison described the problem in Federalist #51 "In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself." Clearly our current administration feels no such "obligation". I believe that situations just as what we are experiencing now were what Madison was referring to when he wrote in that same Federalist #51 that "experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions."
Whenever I hear about possible stupidity from the Supreme Court I want to re-read my copy of The Pelican Brief. Just being helpful by passing along some random thoughts and promoting a GOOD BOOK.
Post a Comment