Is the Constitution the supreme law of the land or not?
Over on the Volokh Conspiracy blog, a commenter named "BruceM" made the following astute observation about the recent Hein v. Freedom From Religion Foundation decision on taxpayer standing to sue under the Constitution's establishment clause:
I responded,
In my lawsuits against the grossly unconstitutional "smog impact fee," I used to wonder why the opposing attorneys and sometimes the judges (when the judges even bothered to express an opinion at all) were quibbling over trivial procedural rules when I was charging that there was a gross violation of the Constitution.
I think that we just need to throw out a lot of precedents and just go back to first principles.
Can anyone cite me to ANY writing by ANY founder that says or implies that a 'standing' requirement should trump an unconstitutional law or application of law?
I responded,
Excellent point. The Constitution is supposed to be the supreme law of the land. To follow a "standing" requirement at the expense of the Constitution is like straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel.
Sometimes we can't see the forest for the trees.
In my lawsuits against the grossly unconstitutional "smog impact fee," I used to wonder why the opposing attorneys and sometimes the judges (when the judges even bothered to express an opinion at all) were quibbling over trivial procedural rules when I was charging that there was a gross violation of the Constitution.
I think that we just need to throw out a lot of precedents and just go back to first principles.
Labels: Establishment clause
posted by Larry Fafarman | 6/27/2007 11:05:00 PM
1 Comments:
> I used to wonder why the opposing attorneys and sometimes the judges (when the judges even bothered to express an opinion at all) were quibbling over trivial procedural rules when I was charging that there was a gross violation of the Constitution. <
The judges do not have to reconstruct the case for you if you have failed to present it properly.
If someone comes into the courtroom wearing grease paint and a clown suit and is blowing a kazoo to try to illustrate his point, the judge is under no obligation to try to find deeper meaning.
As to why the judge did not comment further, that has been explained many, many, many times on this blog by many, many people and you failed to understand it then. There is little point in repeating it.
Post a Comment
<< Home