Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: reasonisfaith

I’m sorry - I didn’t realize that my comment had a passive component.

I am still trying to discern the very basic Constitutional concept which you recognize but I don’t.

Please note that I am not denying that courts decide Constitutional questions - I am trying to figure the process by which the question would be placed before it.


108 posted on 10/12/2017 12:39:50 PM PDT by bagman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies ]


To: bagman

One way is through legislation, which would be reviewed by the Court. (See Trumps immigration attempts.) Another is an by an aggrieved party, most of which would have a very high burden of proving standing, but likely tossed out of court before the Supremes even see it years later.


117 posted on 10/12/2017 1:25:58 PM PDT by SgtHooper (If you remember the 60's, YOU WEREN'T THERE!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies ]

To: bagman

I didn’t mean anything personal against you.

You seem very upset about the media being targeted.


121 posted on 10/12/2017 1:39:04 PM PDT by reasonisfaith ("...because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved." (2 Thessalonians))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


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