Here’s a puzzle: How do you write a law that’s so badly designed that (1) the people it’s meant to help oppose it, (2) the people who hate regulation support it, and (3) everyone …
Last time I checked only the supreme court has the authority to declare something unconstitutional.
I think it is likely (hopefully) going to be struck down by the Supreme court as it is bad in so many ways. I just don’t like the disingenuous language in this title.
Last time I checked only the supreme court has the authority to declare something unconstitutional.
That is not entirely correct. They have the final say in determining what that is, but anyone can declare something unconstitutional based on prior Supreme Court decisions.
The whole US federal legal system is based on that since you first need to get a judgment in trial court, then appeal and only then you can get to the Supreme Court (in 99.99% cases as there are narrow exceptions).
Last time I checked only the supreme court has the authority to declare something unconstitutional.
I think it is likely (hopefully) going to be struck down by the Supreme court as it is bad in so many ways. I just don’t like the disingenuous language in this title.
That is not entirely correct. They have the final say in determining what that is, but anyone can declare something unconstitutional based on prior Supreme Court decisions.
The whole US federal legal system is based on that since you first need to get a judgment in trial court, then appeal and only then you can get to the Supreme Court (in 99.99% cases as there are narrow exceptions).
That’s a good to know