Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: jbe who wrote (41800)	6/25/1999 1:08:00 AM
From: Rambi	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

Ah- I see- well, that's even dumber.

To: jbe who wrote (41800)	6/25/1999 11:23:00 AM
From: The Philosopher	Respond to of 108807

I don't think the Supreme Court can rule an amendment unconstitutional, penni. Perhaps the lawyers among us can advise us on that one. As far as I know, it's never been tested. But I don't see how the court COULD rule an amendment unconstitutional, since it is part of the constitution. It's a well established rule of law that if an older and newer law (of equal legal weight, such as both state statutes) conflict and cannot be reconciled, the newer prevails, since the legislature was presumed to know about the older and to have functionally overruled it. So I think this amendment if passed would prevail. However, you NEVER know what the Supreme Court might do until it does it.