3 ms·

Umm, you know that this is a petition for the Executive Branch, right.

by yifanlu 13y ago

LekkoscPiwa 13y ago
Right. And the Executive Branch may request an opinion regarding legality of a law from the US Supreme Court? Correct? That's at least how it works in many countries in Europe. When the President or the Government is not sure if a law follows the Constitution, they request the Supreme Court to rule on it. It's a non-binding request. The Highest Court may or may not care to investigate. The petition is to ask the Government to ask the Supreme Court to look into the matter.
- bskap 13y ago
  There's no formal procedure for this. Remember, the US Constitution is now the oldest constitution still in use. When it was created, the concept of judicial review wasn't really a thing. It wasn't until 15 years later, in the court case Marbury v Madison, that the precedent for a court ruling a law unconstitutional was established. The Supreme Court just sort of gave themselves that power and everyone else agreed to let them. It was never written down anywhere. The European countries already had seen this when they were rewriting their constitutions, so they have the concept baked in to the legal system.
- hkhanna 13y ago
  > And the Executive Branch may request an opinion regarding legality of a law from the US Supreme Court? Correct? Not directly, no. Article III of the US Constitution only authorizes the federal courts to hear "cases and controversies." That means so-called "advisory" opinions are not allowed by any federal court, including the Supreme Court. Thus, as far as I know, there is no procedure for either Congress or the Executive Branch to request an opinion on the constitutionality of a law from the Supreme Court. Instead, a plaintiff with standing must file suit alleging harm by the law. That's the "case or controversy" requirement. Federal courts is a complicated and dry topic, so this is a broad (and somewhat inaccurate) description. If you'd like to learn more, I recommend the book "Federal Jurisdiction" by Erwin Chermerinsky.
  - LekkoscPiwa 13y ago
    Interesting. And thank you very much for taking your time to explain. I'm a layman here, but that seems a bit awkward to me. Let' say the Congress votes into the law and the President signs a bill suspending civil rights, let's say for blacks. The same purely hypothetical law would require to put them in the concentration camps. Will the Supreme Court just sit on its hands wait and watch? Or am I missing something in the picture? Once again, thanks for your time.
    - hkhanna 13y ago
      In your hypothetical, yes, the Supreme Court can do nothing to stop this law until one of the (many) people harmed by this law brings suit in federal court. You're right, it is a bit awkward. And I'm sure we could debate the merits of whether such a system is a good thing as a matter of policy. But the "case or controversy" requirement is written in the Constitution, so it is probably here to stay.

Umm, you know that this is a petition for the Executive Branch, right.

by yifanlu 13y ago

Umm, you know that this is a petition for the Executive Branch, right.

Right. And the Executive Branch may request an opinion regarding legality of a law from the US Supreme Court? Correct? That's at least how it works in many countries in Europe. When the President or the Government is not sure if a law follows the Constitution, they request the Supreme Court to rule on it. It's a non-binding request. The Highest Court may or may not care to investigate. The petition is to ask the Government to ask the Supreme Court to look into the matter.

bskap 13y ago
There's no formal procedure for this. Remember, the US Constitution is now the oldest constitution still in use. When it was created, the concept of judicial review wasn't really a thing. It wasn't until 15 years later, in the court case Marbury v Madison, that the precedent for a court ruling a law unconstitutional was established. The Supreme Court just sort of gave themselves that power and everyone else agreed to let them. It was never written down anywhere. The European countries already had seen this when they were rewriting their constitutions, so they have the concept baked in to the legal system.
hkhanna 13y ago
> And the Executive Branch may request an opinion regarding legality of a law from the US Supreme Court? Correct? Not directly, no. Article III of the US Constitution only authorizes the federal courts to hear "cases and controversies." That means so-called "advisory" opinions are not allowed by any federal court, including the Supreme Court. Thus, as far as I know, there is no procedure for either Congress or the Executive Branch to request an opinion on the constitutionality of a law from the Supreme Court. Instead, a plaintiff with standing must file suit alleging harm by the law. That's the "case or controversy" requirement. Federal courts is a complicated and dry topic, so this is a broad (and somewhat inaccurate) description. If you'd like to learn more, I recommend the book "Federal Jurisdiction" by Erwin Chermerinsky.
- LekkoscPiwa 13y ago
  Interesting. And thank you very much for taking your time to explain. I'm a layman here, but that seems a bit awkward to me. Let' say the Congress votes into the law and the President signs a bill suspending civil rights, let's say for blacks. The same purely hypothetical law would require to put them in the concentration camps. Will the Supreme Court just sit on its hands wait and watch? Or am I missing something in the picture? Once again, thanks for your time.
  - hkhanna 13y ago
    In your hypothetical, yes, the Supreme Court can do nothing to stop this law until one of the (many) people harmed by this law brings suit in federal court. You're right, it is a bit awkward. And I'm sure we could debate the merits of whether such a system is a good thing as a matter of policy. But the "case or controversy" requirement is written in the Constitution, so it is probably here to stay.