We Have A Remedy
We've got an election today out here, and one ballot measure that caught my attention is Charter Amendment N, which deals with campaign finance. It's essentially a measure which makes local law comply with the Citizens United case.
I've never thought much about this before, but what happens when the Supreme Court declares a bunch of laws across the nation unconstitutional? Are they automatically voided? Do local officials stop following them? Do they need to take affirmative measures? Is there a requirement the laws be rewritten?
In this case, they seem to be asking the voters to do what's required. Is that the only way to change the laws? And what happens if the local vote rejects the Amendment? Do officials continue to enforce unconstitutional laws, while the fines and lawsuits pile up?
posted by LAGuy @ 12:18 AM
4 Comments:
I say keep enforcing it. Who cares what the law is?
You always see these lists of ridiculous laws that are "still on the books." Besides laws that were specifically litigated and declared void, I suspect there are all sorts of unconstitutional laws that remain on the books and simply aren't enforced.
I find it a little hard to believe this has not been addressed definitively. No law review wannabe has explored this in the last 50 years?
Speaking generally and unsophisticated, the law doesn't tend to do things that are a) hypothetical or b) not a case and controversy.
Why take an action if the court has already ruled other than as a housekeeping matter? There's other more exciting stuff to do. If someone tries to enforce the law in court, it will presumably get thrown out. That being said- a vote on whether to throw out something seems prime for mischief. I would vote the opposite way just to see what happens
Post a Comment
<< Home