[Peace-discuss] Re: [Discuss] War on drugs

[John W.]

On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 10:21 AM, E. Wayne Johnson <ewj at pigs.ag> wrote:

 John W. wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, Sep 23, 2008 at 9:54 PM, E. Wayne Johnson <ewj at pigs.ag> wrote:
>
>  Au contraire, I really do disagree with you about the concept of
>> constitutionality being based solely in the Supreme Court.
>>
>
> You mean, a law can be unconstitutional in your own mind?  :-)
>
> *Why not?  I am of full age and I can read, and I can decide what is good
> and what is not good.*
>

Yes, you can.  And you should.  But your decisions, sage and prescient
though they may be, do not have the force of law.   And if they don't have
at least SOME basis in existing  jurisprudence, your constitutional
cogitations are largely a waste of precious neurotransmitters.




> **
>
>  Although the Supreme Court can determine constitutionality and it is
>> temporally the decision of the court that
>> establishes ultimate decisions in controversial cases, the Supreme Court
>> is by no means the sole determinate
>> of constitutionality provided that people are indeed able to read.
>>
>
> Who else is, then?  The people?  It's a fine theory.  But try using that
> argument in a court of law.
>
>
> The point is that we can read the constitution and decide during the
> preparation of laws whether or not they
> are constitutional.  Recently in Urbana, one of the city council members
> suggested that the city pass
> an unconstitutional ordinance that would restrict free speech.  Fortunately
> it was pointed out that such
> an action would be unconstitutional.  Amazingly, the alderman had the
> imperious gall to suggest that
> the action should be passed even though it was unconstitutional, and be
> left for the courts to sort out
> if anyone should challenge it.   Liberty did carry the day, but fundamental
> liberty and the constitution was challenged.
>

I'm delighted that things turned out so well on that occasion for the
citizens of Urbana.  What really happened, though, where you say "it was
pointed out...", is that some smart American citizen - and I'm guessing it
was the City Attorney, who has read hundreds if not thousands of Supreme
Court decisions - said "Hmmmmm....based on all of the Supreme Court
decisions I've read, a court is likely to find this city ordinance
unconstitutional because it restricts the content of speech."  S/he didn't
use his/her own independent judgment; s/he framed the inquiry in terms of
prior constitutional jurisprudence.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/archive/peace-discuss/attachments/20080924/66496e2c/attachment-0001.htm