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.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: tejek who wrote (176853)	10/21/2003 6:27:01 PM
From: i-node	Respond to of 1576348

You just admitted that the Miranda decision by the SC had to be made into law by Congress but you still want me to admit I'm wrong. I can admit I was wrong but that's hard to do when you just validated what I was saying. No, I didn't. Congress passed the Miranda Act several years later because it wanted to add to the requirements set out by the Supreme Court. It is routine for Congress to allow court (Supreme Court, as well as lower court) decisions to stand, as law, for years (this is what is referred to as "common law") -- in fact, Congress often cites such case law in its committee reports leading up to the passage of other lesiglation -- in effect, allowng the case law to form the rationale and basis for subsequent legislation. The aforementioned Cohan Rule is one case where this was done. The Cohan Rule was never codified into law; and in fact, legislation was finally made in 1986 that LIMITED the applicability of Cohan. Another example is the "Assignment of Income" doctrine. Prior to 1954, the Internal Revenue Code made no reference to "assignment of income" and did not bar assignment to avoid taxes. But in the landmark case, Lucas v. Earl, the Supreme Court established that income is taxed to the person who earns it, forming the "Assignment of Income" doctrine. If you review the case Helvering v. Horst, I think you'll see that it relies solely on outcomes of prior case law in determining the petitioner's assignment of income status. I mention tax cases because those are what I'm most familiar with. But the same principle holds in all substantive court decisions. It is called "precedent", and it is an important source of law.