?

Log in

No account? Create an account

Fri, Apr. 8th, 2005, 02:35 pm
Uh oh.

[Not good.] (From relee.)

Mon, Apr. 11th, 2005 02:38 pm (UTC)
guido_jacobs: Re: No, but we'd all be amused before the aftermath.

Oh, I get it! It won't work if it's passed, and it won't work if it's destroyed, so either way, nothing'll happen. :)

Mon, Apr. 11th, 2005 04:34 pm (UTC)
cgranade: Re: No, but we'd all be amused before the aftermath.

Well, looking at it, the law only precribes that something happens in response to the courts ruling the law unconstitutional. For example, if they the courts try to strike down or uphold another law based on legal precedent, or laws passed since the 1780s, then this law blocks. Since the courts are in the process of striking down laws anyway, then this would also be struck as part of the bundle. The law says that if the law is struck, it provides penalties for the judges. Problem is, how can it do something after it has been struck? Therefore, the law only makes a statement as has negligable legal effect.

Mon, Apr. 11th, 2005 05:03 pm (UTC)
guido_jacobs: Re: No, but we'd all be amused before the aftermath.

Oh...I guess I understand that...

...you have quite the political knowledge/vocabulary there...

Mon, Apr. 11th, 2005 08:10 pm (UTC)
cgranade: Re: No, but we'd all be amused before the aftermath.

Not really. That's more mathematics, really. Something our opponents seem to lack...

Mon, Apr. 11th, 2005 08:45 pm (UTC)
guido_jacobs: Re: No, but we'd all be amused before the aftermath.

With those math skills, you might make a good president.