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: Ilaine who wrote (105053)	3/20/2005 2:06:00 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793834

you think that Congress (and I) decided in advance that the Florida law was unconstitutional. The stage we are at now is whether Congress should give courts the power to make that adjudication. No, I don't think that anyone had "decided" anything. Not in the legal sense, anyway. Trust me, I know which branch of government makes such decisions. But you must suspect unconstitutionality or you wouldn't be going through this elaborate exercise on the grounds that federal court jurisdiction is required to review the constitutionality of state laws. Why aren't you proposing that have federal courts review alimony determinations on the off chance that there might be something unconstitutional there? Of course, that's silly. And this is silly, too, unless you have some hypothesis about constitutionality. If you don't want to speculate about what sorts of typical end-of-life provisions of state law you might find unconstitutional, fine. Your argument about getting federal review to surface constitutional issues resonated with me, but without good cause to think these laws are unconstitutional, this proposed legislation is either a fishing expedition, political venue shopping, or pure emotionalism and I'm not buying any of those. I think these are private matters, which should be handled close to home. If we have to get the state involved to control against abuse, so be it. But to go further than that, for this federalist, libertarian, systems analyst, and policy wonk, at least, there needs to be a much better argument than you've offered. We don't need a replay of the abortion fiasco, only this time with the pro-lifers championing judicial overreach rather than states rights. Not constructive at all. If folks have a problem with these laws, fix them in the states.