3 ms·
AKA the Supreme Court. Edit: I think the end of your comment was edited in. Regarding waiting, often it's because nobody considered it problematic at the time.
by ikeboy 11y ago
AKA the Supreme Court.
Edit: I think the end of your comment was edited in. Regarding waiting, often it's because nobody considered it problematic at the time. Many rulings striking down laws are overturning previous rulings upholding those laws, and are rarely unanimous.
Find me a law that was overturned unanimously, would be struck down by any court looking at it, yet was both law and enforced for decades because nobody looked at it.
- Spooky23 11y agoThe Supreme Court cannot proactively take on an issue. Hacking around stuff like jurisdiction and standing is how obviously unconstitutional practices like what the NSA and various other agencies do are able to persist so long.
- ikeboy 11y agoYou realize that several courts have disagreed with your blanket finding of "obviously unconstitutional"? And the legal issue there is mostly whether the law actually authorizes the NSA to do what they do, not Constitutional issues (with exception). Which specific practices have courts not found to be constitutional, yet wasn't stopped because of "jurisdiction and standing"?
- Spooky23 11y agoDo you think that a program like BULLRUN, where the government secretly modifies systems belonging to US and other entities is constitutional? The answer is almost certainly "no". But good luck litigating it.
- ikeboy 11y agoThat's got nothing to do with jurisdiction and standing, and everything to do with the people in charge denying that it takes place. Could you link to which specific leaked info says that they secretly modified US systems? How would a court looking at more laws have stopped whatever happened?
- mjcohen 11y agoThis Supreme Court has. Look at Citizens United. This, and other decisions, is why this Supreme Court has done more damage to the US than ISIS could ever hope to do.
- wl 11y agoThe Citizens United case in brief: The Supreme Court said that the Federal Elections Commission's attempt to censor a documentary about Hillary Clinton as an "electioneering communication" within x days of an election was a violation of the first amendment. If you don't like the outcome in Citizens United, you've either been lied to about what the decision was or you believe that the first amendment doesn't apply to political speech when people organize together to speak it.
- sitkack 11y agoNo not at all. You have to have standing, and you have to bring your case. The exact opposite of the supreme court.
- ikeboy 11y agoAnyone whose rights could conceivably be violated under some law has standing to challenge it. "You have to bring the case" what's the alternative, that someone sues for every new law even if nobody thinks it's unconstitutional? Who exactly do we get to argue for outcomes nobody believes or wants? (Yes, lawyers will argue for things they don't believe, but somebody wants that outcome). So if everyone likes a law, the best thing should be not to have a lawsuit. If someone doesn't like a law, then they can go ahead and sue. Or do you want all laws to be delayed until pending lawsuits finish? But if a court agrees that you're very likely to prevail, they can issue an injunction to prevent the law from going into effect. Most laws have a waiting period before becoming law anyway. Could you be very specific in which particular aspect of modern American jurisprudence you would abolish, what your justification for that is, and what you'd replace it with?
- sitkack 11y ago> Anyone whose rights could conceivably be violated under some law has standing to challenge it. It is extremely difficult for an individual to bring a case before the court to challenge a law _without_ having that law being used against the same individual. You have to commit the crime and be charged using the law. That would give you standing. The government can pass all the unconstitutional laws they want, which then get applied to people, if someone has the means to fight and win, then the law gets overturned. There is no lower or time limit to which laws can violate the constitution.
- ikeboy 11y agoThat's incorrect. For first amendment violations, everyone has standing, and for everything else, you only need to show that it will harm you, not that it's being used against you. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standing_(law)#Recent_development_of_the_doctrine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standing_(law)#Recent_developm... and the next two sections.