3 ms·
> (other than being almost 100 years old) Age alone shouldn't disqualify a law. The law above all other laws, aka the Constitution, is more than 200 years old.
by curt15 1y ago
> (other than being almost 100 years old)
Age alone shouldn't disqualify a law. The law above all other laws, aka the Constitution, is more than 200 years old.
- lovich 1y agoThe Constitution as it stood 200 years ago is not the Constitution as it stands today. Comparing an unmodified law based on age is not the same as comparing a mutable documents original age
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- Aloisius 1y agoUnmodified law? The law in question has been amended many, many, many times in the last 100 years. For goodness sake, the original law set specific tariffs for 20,000 different goods. Little of the original law still exists unmodified.
- wredcoll 1y agoPeople love to say things like this, but much like electing an 80 year old president, it should perhaps be a trigger for a more thorough evaluation.
- iamtheworstdev 1y agoi don't think anyone would disagree that a law can "age out", but simply ignoring it because it's old versus revisiting it's intent and modifying/removing/etc are two very different strategies.
- aiforecastthway 1y agoIn this case, age is not what disqualifies the law. Rather, what renders the law inapplicable to this situation is some combination of: 1. another statute that super-cedes the 1930 statute because it specifically limits Presidential emergency powers in the context of balance-of-trade issues. See around p. 35 of the slip opinion. 2. The Constitution itself, which limits Congress's ability to cede its own powers.