26 November 2013

Standing

I was reading this post from Joe and the comments.

Under a myriad of federal laws you need to be arrested to have standing to challenge their constitutionality.

By that point you're just flat boned even if you win and the law is declared unconstitutional.

The comments talk about the barriers to standing a little.

Something simple that could be added...

First we really get hard core on getting jurors fully informed.

Next, if a jury acquits a suspect on the grounds that it's unconstitutional then the law is automatically unconstitutional and void.  With caveats:  The verdict can be appealed and it automatically has certiorari all the way to the top.

If the law is ultimately decided to be constitutional, the suspect is still acquitted.

And the Supreme Court ruling that it's constitutional doesn't mean the next jury can't nullify it tomorrow and start the process all over again.

"We, The Jury, find this law to be unconstitutional..." should be a valid verdict and it's every citizen's right to declare so.

No comments:

Post a Comment

You are a guest here when you comment. This is my soapbox, not yours. Be polite. Inappropriate comments will be deleted without mention. Amnesty period is expired.

Do not go off on a tangent, stay with the topic of the post. If I can't tell what your point is in the first couple of sentences I'm flushing it.

If you're trying to comment anonymously: Sign your work. Try this link for an explanation: https://mcthag.blogspot.com/2023/04/lots-of-new-readers.html

Anonymous comments must pass a higher bar than others. Repeat offenders must pass an even higher bar.

If you can't comprehend this, don't comment; because I'm going to moderate and mock you for wasting your time.