Quote:
|
Originally Posted by joeker
There is not going to be a consitutional challenge to the UIGEA....you will never see it. Why? because it's not unconsitutional. You dont have to be legal expert to realize this.
It's just waste of time and a bad argument to make, when you should be focusing on the arguments needed to overturn the stupid law
|
Have you actually researched what are the main successful challenges that allow people to overturn laws?
Umm....analyzing the "constitutionality" IS one of the most likely "arguments needed to overturn the stupid law" unless you can get the elected officials to act together for a change.
Quote:
just sayin
and you dont need to be an attorney or legal expert to understand and interpret the Constitution |
Do you think that maybe attorneys and legal experts are *
needed* to understand
WHY something could be
UNconstitutional?
Because, maybe, if it was so obvious to the naked eye, the laws would not have been passed in the first place?
Abortion was not discussed in the Constitution, either.
But it took attorneys and legal experts to find arguments that could make the Constitution seem relevant to the debate, and the decision to allow women to have abortions - which were against the law.
But, you are right - any idiot can see that abortion is not mentioned anywhere in the Constitution, so why bother trying to make the argument that laws preventing women from doing what they want with their own bodies are UNconstitutional?
Quite right, total waste of time.
Challenges to laws very frequently revolve around weighing the social benefit of allowing the almighty Government to do whatever it wants versus the Constitutional rights of the individual to do whatever s/he wants.
And, it does take *experts* to fight bullshit with bullshit.
I'll just give you one example:
"The 1998 Child Online Protection Act required Web sites to collect a credit card number or other proof of age before allowing Internet users to view material deemed “harmful to minors.” The 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals barred enforcement of that law, saying
the standards were so broad and vague that the law was probably unconstitutional."
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/...in510688.shtml
The combination of credit cards and access to pornography is not actually discussed in the Constitution, surprisingly.
However, it is not the *content* of the law which is the subject of the Constitutional appeal - but rather the *process* of the law which may have Constitutional relevance.
I would not be surprised if someone tries to make the argument that the UIGEA law is unconstitutional because it puts an unfair burden onto Banks that other businesses are not subjected to.....or something else to do with the *process* and *consequences* of the law.
The point is that it takes a little bit of brainstorming and creativity to find reasons *why* a law should be overturned. You are quite right, though - the rather black and white approach to Constitutional matters you have described is just a waste of time.
Linear Mode
