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.

Technology Stocks : Intel Corporation (INTC) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: ratan lal who wrote (120704)	12/7/2000 1:27:07 AM
From: nihil	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

A constitutional amendment may be retroactive. The constitutional prohibition to pass ex post facto laws of congress does not forbid a retroactive amendment. The only provision of the constitution (by its own assertion) that may not be amended is the equal representation of states in the senate. The amendment would be hard to pass, if nor no other reason that many of the state legislatures would act as if bound by antiretroactivity provisios in their own state constitutions. This is where I think Scalia is wrong. A legislature that in passing laws authorized by the U.S> Constitution violated its own constitution would be violating state law.