Could Congress pass a law...

IronWing

No Lifer
Jul 20, 2001
72,335
32,881
136
Yes. Then the Supremes could smack it down. Or not, their track record is pretty uneven when it comes to smacking down patently un-Constitutional laws.
 
Feb 19, 2001
20,155
23
81
I think its possible. Things like Prop 8 in CA and the former Prop 22 got passed. It takes a while for the courts to act too, so this is quite interesting. It's like you could have a illegitimate law for a few years before it gets struck down.... especially if there's public backing too.

I don't think Congress could pass something too far out there like bringing back slavery because even if the courts don't act soon enough, I think the nation would tear itself apart by then.
 

thecrecarc

Diamond Member
Aug 17, 2004
3,364
3
0
Congress could pass it. Then the Supreme Court, if it is brought up, would review the law and determine its constitutionality, and whether to strike it down or not. Given that the Constitution is plenty ambiguous, there will be plenty of people to agree or disagree on the Supreme Court's ruling, of course.

Technically, its arguable that a law is only unconstitutional when a court strikes it down. Theoretically, we will have plenty of people screaming at each other on the internet on whether the law is constitutional or not depending on their own personal beliefs.
 

drebo

Diamond Member
Feb 24, 2006
7,034
1
81
Just FYI, Prop 8 in California isn't unconstitutional. Except in the mind of a stupid judges who wants to make his name by being controvercial.

Sexual orientation is not a protected class.
 

Patranus

Diamond Member
Apr 15, 2007
9,280
0
0
Considering they passed a law that requires you to purchase a product from a private company with private funds I would say 'yes'.

Pretty sure the Constitution doesn't even enter their mind when they pass a law.
 

Patranus

Diamond Member
Apr 15, 2007
9,280
0
0
Just FYI, Prop 8 in California isn't unconstitutional. Except in the mind of a stupid judges who wants to make his name by being controvercial.

Sexual orientation is not a protected class.

Well, the idea of "protected classes" is somewhat unconstitutional in itself.
 
Feb 19, 2001
20,155
23
81
Just FYI, Prop 8 in California isn't unconstitutional. Except in the mind of a stupid judges who wants to make his name by being controvercial.

Sexual orientation is not a protected class.

Well I don't know if this is the best example of something unconstitutional. I'm against it, but I realize it rides a VERY fine line.

I read the recent ruling, but if you read the 2009 ruling in May where the ruling did not kill Prop 8, the judges seemed to point out some things that do make sense. It is a very controversial proposition, and what not.

But still, I do lean towards the unconstitutional side. But this is a pretty good example that if it IS unconstitutional, it can still stand for a while since its got so much backing.
 

thecrecarc

Diamond Member
Aug 17, 2004
3,364
3
0
To stop the derailing of this thread, the OP only asked if it was possible to pass such a law, not whether XX law is unconstitutional. And since a judge has to rule a law is unconstitutional for it to be such technically, and a law has to be passed before it is able to be ruled on, the answer is yes.
 

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
111,695
31,043
146
Just FYI, Prop 8 in California isn't unconstitutional. Except in the mind of a stupid judges who wants to make his name by being controvercial.

Sexual orientation is not a protected class.

it was decided by voters...which democracies recognize as an "illegal act" (the rights of a minority can not be decided by a majority vote--it's such a simple concept that only troglodytes can't understand this).

Also, legislating that one group must live separately from another, must not engage in the same legal and social protections as another, is patently unconstitutional.

the fact that you ascribe the constitutional basis of prop 8 on the issue of sexual orientation, rather than the language that denies a minority group the legal and social protections already ascribed to the majority population, is laughable at best, but most likely an indictment on your own blind prejudice.

prop 8 exists only because of personal prejudice. When you get to the heart of this issue, there really is no logical or legal defense of prop 8. That is what the judge said--that is THE PURPOSE OF THE JUDICIARY--to defend the rights of unprotected classes against illegal and/or discriminatory laws.

It's funny, this claim: "Just b/c some judge thinks..."

L-O-FUCKING-L!! How many of you willfully failed Jr High Civics that you really don't understand the purpose of the federal court system? amazing.
 

mmntech

Lifer
Sep 20, 2007
17,501
12
0
Yes, and they have depending on your point of view. Despite what people think, the constitution is 100 percent up to the interpretation de jour. The wording was deliberately made vague for this reason.
 

Mo0o

Lifer
Jul 31, 2001
24,227
3
76
Of course. What's constitutional or unconstitutional is up to the interpretation of the supreme court.

But the more important question is, can god heat up a microwave burrito so hot even he couldn't eat it?
 

Patranus

Diamond Member
Apr 15, 2007
9,280
0
0
Yes, and they have depending on your point of view. Despite what people think, the constitution is 100 percent up to the interpretation de jour. The wording was deliberately made vague for this reason.

Um.
How does....

[The Congress shall have Power] To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes;

....get interpreted as lack of interstate commerce can also be regulated?

Pretty sure the Constitution isn't 100% up to interpretation.
 

JulesMaximus

No Lifer
Jul 3, 2003
74,550
940
126
Well, the idea of "protected classes" is somewhat unconstitutional in itself.

Why? Because the founding fathers didn't have to deal specifically with the gays when they drafted the constitution? Really, all they had to deal with were issues like taxation, religious persecution, and individual rights...oh wait, there's that individual rights thing again. I'm pretty sure that's what caused the Civil War actually. But I'm no historian.
 

Kadarin

Lifer
Nov 23, 2001
44,296
16
81
Could Congress pass a law...that's unconstitutional?

Of course not.

Congress is the Legislative branch of the US government, and its members vote on and sometimes pass bills. If the bill passes both the House and the Senate, the President can choose to sign it into law, but at no time does Congress pass something that is technically a law.

;)
 

destrekor

Lifer
Nov 18, 2005
28,799
359
126
Why? Because the founding fathers didn't have to deal specifically with the gays when they drafted the constitution? Really, all they had to deal with were issues like taxation, religious persecution, and individual rights...oh wait, there's that individual rights thing again. I'm pretty sure that's what caused the Civil War actually. But I'm no historian.

Well, let's be fair - the Constitution could not possibly include everything upon which the Federal Government would ever have to weigh an opinion, including things nobody would even think of a century or two after it had been written.

However, a big however, it is in my humble opinion that which has been written into the Constitution, is not "up for interpretation", or vague so as to be future proof. Future-proofing the Constitution is what Amendments are for, this was fairly clear when the whole Constitution and Amendment system was incorporated into the government.

With that in mind, I wholly stick to that concept when looking at what is currently in the Constitution, including Amendments. Let's cite the First Amendment as an example: yadda yadda yadda, it can easily be summed up as free speech. But no where is it ever mentioned that free speech includes, well, bodily actions and/or written word. With a stretch of the freedom of interpretation, one might argue all of that can be referred to as "speech". I don't dare put words into the Constitution, where the words that are there are clear and legible.

I only state those, because while I do agree written word is Freedom of Speech, the First Amendment is thoroughly abused on a daily basis it seems, always coming up in court cases around the country, determining if such and such falls under Free Speech.
Fuck, I say... stop twisting the words of the Constitution - if you want the Constitution to say something, get all of the damn Government on board and try to ratify an Amendment.
Government has gotten excessively wordy, yet the Constitution is actually very easy to read, and very easy to understand. There is no reading between the lines, nor was that ever intended. Of course, I could be wrong, but it isn't fitting of what the writers stood for - they didn't want the government abusing the government. Yet, Amendment X gets trampled over daily, and we citizens never get to vote on it. We don't have to, however, we only need to be mindful of what the dumbfucks are talking about in the Assemblies, at all levels of government. It's very easy to do, it's all right at our fingertips online, quite easy to follow all of the various proposals and bills, including who voted what... but the population is lazy, and then fucking cries foul. Vote the fuckers out if they voted against something you care about.
That's what I'm doing this term - all fresh faces, or at the least, whoever has voted "wrong" the least number of times.
 

drebo

Diamond Member
Feb 24, 2006
7,034
1
81
it was decided by voters...which democracies recognize as an "illegal act" (the rights of a minority can not be decided by a majority vote--it's such a simple concept that only troglodytes can't understand this).

Also, legislating that one group must live separately from another, must not engage in the same legal and social protections as another, is patently unconstitutional.

the fact that you ascribe the constitutional basis of prop 8 on the issue of sexual orientation, rather than the language that denies a minority group the legal and social protections already ascribed to the majority population, is laughable at best, but most likely an indictment on your own blind prejudice.

prop 8 exists only because of personal prejudice. When you get to the heart of this issue, there really is no logical or legal defense of prop 8. That is what the judge said--that is THE PURPOSE OF THE JUDICIARY--to defend the rights of unprotected classes against illegal and/or discriminatory laws.

It's funny, this claim: "Just b/c some judge thinks..."

L-O-FUCKING-L!! How many of you willfully failed Jr High Civics that you really don't understand the purpose of the federal court system? amazing.

With all due respect (which is quite literally none), the 10th Amendment says that states can enact laws which can say anything that they want, as long as they do not contradict the role of the Federal government as laid out in the constitution. The only people who decide whether or not the law fits are the people who vote on them. States are all subject to their own charters before they are subject to any other outside regulation. Point to me in California's constitution where it says that the voters are not allowed to pass laws simply because they affect the minority and not the majority.

That puts opposition to Prop 8 squarely in the 14th Amendment, because (and try to follow this closely) marriage is the ward of the states, not the federal government. The 14th Amendment is the one that deals with protected classes. Sexual orientation is NOT a protected class. Thus, Prop 8 is NOT unconstitutional.

Also, note that I am not against providing gays and lesbians equal rights under the law for the purposes of civil unions. I'm a libertarian. I don't give a shit what they do in the privacy of their own bedroom. If they want to be a couple, fine by me. To imply that the sovereign right of a state to pass laws made by the people of that state to govern the people of that state is unconstitutional rankles me something fierce.

I'm well aware that states' rights are the number one target of the liberal agenda, but that doesn't mean they are any more right than the nutjobs who think gays are by choice. The 10th Amendment is there for a reason, and it's a GOOD THING.

Aside from that, States are ensured a REPUBLICAN government by the Constitution...meaning that the majority does, indeed, dictate the laws by popular vote.
 

drebo

Diamond Member
Feb 24, 2006
7,034
1
81
Instead of debating whether or not a State statute is unconstitutional, why don't we focus on an actual unconstitutional law that the Federal government passed. Why not two: "Healthcare "reform"" and the "Patriot" Act.

Both are unconstitutional. Both were voted in.
 

AznAnarchy99

Lifer
Dec 6, 2004
14,695
117
106
Aside from that, States are ensured a REPUBLICAN government by the Constitution...meaning that the majority does, indeed, dictate the laws by popular vote.

And wasn't it the founding fathers who believed that the popular vote by the people would not completely work since people are inherently swayed and/or retarded at times, which is why they also set some security measures in place.
 

IGBT

Lifer
Jul 16, 2001
17,967
140
106
most states would be better off returning to territory status to reclaim sovereignty.
 
Feb 19, 2001
20,155
23
81
it was decided by voters...which democracies recognize as an "illegal act" (the rights of a minority can not be decided by a majority vote--it's such a simple concept that only troglodytes can't understand this).

Actually the concept of a democracy is such that the minority must follow the majority. However there are certain protections enacted so the minority don't get screwed over completely.