Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: jazusamo

Yeah, that’s it exactly. If it’s unconstitutional, that ought to trump everything else.

But I think that what has happened, is that Congress started this way way back by telling courts they couldn’t review taxes until they were paid. And the courts accepted it, because it dramatically reduced the frivolous filings and their workload.

The end result is this crazy doctrine that plantiffs don’t have standing until after the plantiff has actually suffered harm, nevermind how much harm is bearing down on poor plantiff.


11 posted on 11/09/2012 11:37:42 AM PST by DannyTN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies ]


To: DannyTN; george76
I just went back and found Molloy's statement on this from August 2011 where he reversed his decision.

excerpt:

"If I were not constrained by what I believe is binding precedent ... I would hold Section 1713 is unconstitutional because it violates the Separation of Powers doctrine," Molloy wrote in his 18-page decision.

But he added higher courts have held that "so long as Congress uses the words ‘without regard to any other provision in statute or regulation that applies,' or something similar, then the doctrine of constitutional avoidance requires the court to impose a saving interpretation(.)"

Molloy upholds delisting of wolves in Montana, Idaho

12 posted on 11/09/2012 11:47:28 AM PST by jazusamo ("Intellect is not wisdom" -- Thomas Sowell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson