3 ms·

> In 2010, the Court found a method of hedging risk, a business method, was not eligible for patent protection because it was an abstract idea. And yet, Micros

> In 2010, the Court found a method of hedging risk, a business method, was not eligible for patent protection because it was an abstract idea. And yet, Microsoft and IBM still managed press Congress to keep it in the latest patent reform. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2013/11/20/software-patent-reform-just-died-in-the-house-thanks-to-ibm-and-microsoft/ http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2013/11/20... This is what pisses me off about the US system. There's no Constitutionality check prior to "enabling" a new law (and after the president signs it). So even if the Supreme Court declares something outright unconstitutional, Congress could still pass a law allowing that. That seems pretty crazy to me. There needs to be a Constitutional Court, who's much like the Supreme Court, but who's job is not to take lawsuits, but to verify bills for constitutionality before becoming laws. This is how it's done in other countries, and the chance for passing something unconstitutional is much lower. The Supreme Court would still have the final word, if one law does get through the Constitutional Court (either because the CC judges weren't on their game, or they became more corrupt due to more direct pressure from the government to allow a certain law), and then that law ends up at the Supreme Court through lawsuits.

gamblor956 13y ago
They already have that. It's called every single Federal court, ever. The proper means for determining the constitutionality of a law is after it has been passed, but before it takes effect. There is no reason to determine the constitutionality of a bill before the bill has been passed, as it might not become law. Thousands of bills are considered every year. Wasting court resources on those bills, and especially the multitude of bills that would never even become law, would preclude the courts from handling anything else. Bills never become effective immediately--there is always at least a few days of delay. If the constitutionality of a law is at issue, someone will challenge it in federal court, at which time the courts will review it. Generally, at that point the law is suspended so that it does not take effect until the constitutional review is completed.

gamblor956 13y ago

They already have that. It's called every single Federal court, ever. The proper means for determining the constitutionality of a law is after it has been passed, but before it takes effect. There is no reason to determine the constitutionality of a bill before the bill has been passed, as it might not become law. Thousands of bills are considered every year. Wasting court resources on those bills, and especially the multitude of bills that would never even become law, would preclude the courts from handling anything else. Bills never become effective immediately--there is always at least a few days of delay. If the constitutionality of a law is at issue, someone will challenge it in federal court, at which time the courts will review it. Generally, at that point the law is suspended so that it does not take effect until the constitutional review is completed.