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 : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lane3 who wrote (104900)	3/19/2005 1:21:03 PM
From: Ilaine	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793782

The law and its implementing procedures, regardless of whether state or federal, are a product of the will of the majority. What are you looking to your brave judge to do about that? Oh, that's easy. If the law is unconstitutional, the judge needs to strike it down. I thought it was clear that this is what we were talking about. We were talking about a proposed federal law giving federal courts jurisdiction to review certain state cases, and the issue, I think, is whether this is something which is consistent with the principles of federalism, or contrary to the principles of federalism. My point is that, while I believe in federalism, it goes without saying that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and when a state law or state case conflicts with the Constitution then the Constitution prevails. But how to get from state court to federal court for judicial review? In a criminal case, you'd use habeas corpus, but you can't use habeas corpus in a civil case. Civil cases can't jump from state to federal court unless there is a basis for federal jurisdiction. Maybe there already exists a basis for federal jurisdiction but I can't think of it.