But again, silly does not equal unconstitutional. Car dealerships are closed by law on Sundays in MN (and in many other states). There is morality reasoning behind that (which I have never fully understood). I think its silly. But it certainly isn't unconstitutional.
it's not suprising. the right to privacy has been so loosely interpreted that women can have abortions on demand. a mother's right to "choice" doesn't exist when you have consentual sex with another.
I think that basing it on a religious objection might actually be unconsitutional. I'm pretty sure, though veiled in "morality" that this is the major cause of this law to begin with.
Well, the religious intrusion would have to be demonstrated. That's not so easy to do. At any rate, the court didn't employ any first amendment rationale, nor did the plaintiffs bring a first amendment complaint. So, the religious issue is rather moot.
ahh, the so called "seperation of church and state". reading the first amendment, I see no violation here. The federal government had no authority to strike down this law and as much as historical revisionists would like you to believe that this seperation exists at all levels of government, it's simply not true. heck, states had their own official Christian churches back in the day.
Well, that kind of gets to the point though. Sure its "nice" that they changed it but do the courts have the authority to change it. This is why people get nervous about "activist" courts because the court begins to serve the purpose of the legislature. The court's (at this level) only responsibility and authority is to judge the constitutionality of laws. Their opinion about the silliness of a law is irrelevant if it is constitutional. Legislatures write laws all the time that we all look at and say "well, that was stupid" or "that's a bad idea" or "that's a p.r. nightmare", but stupid, bad, and insensitive doesn't necessarily equal unconstitutional. The court only gets a say regarding constitutionality, not regarding "sense".
Well, that kind of gets to the point though. Sure its "nice" that they changed it but do the courts have the authority to change it. This is why people get nervous about "activist" courts because the court begins to serve the purpose of the legislature. The court's (at this level) only responsibility and authority is to judge the constitutionality of laws. Their opinion about the silliness of a law is irrelevant if it is constitutional. Legislatures write laws all the time that we all look at and say "well, that was stupid" or "that's a bad idea" or "that's a p.r. nightmare", but stupid, bad, and insensitive doesn't necessarily equal unconstitutional. The court only gets a say regarding constitutionality, not regarding "sense". I
Well, that kind of gets to the point though. Sure its "nice" that they changed it but do the courts have the authority to change it. This is why people get nervous about "activist" courts because the court begins to serve the purpose of the legislature. The court's (at this level) only responsibility and authority is to judge the constitutionality of laws. Their opinion about the silliness of a law is irrelevant if it is constitutional. Legislatures write laws all the time that we all look at and say "well, that was stupid" or "that's a bad idea" or "that's a p.r. nightmare", but stupid, bad, and insensitive doesn't necessarily equal unconstitutional. The court only gets a say regarding constitutionality, not regarding "sense". I don't care
Well, that kind of gets to the point though. Sure its "nice" that they changed it but do the courts have the authority to change it. This is why people get nervous about "activist" courts because the court begins to serve the purpose of the legislature. The court's (at this level) only responsibility and authority is to judge the constitutionality of laws. Their opinion about the silliness of a law is irrelevant if it is constitutional. Legislatures write laws all the time that we all look at and say "well, that was stupid" or "that's a bad idea" or "that's a p.r. nightmare", but stupid, bad, and insensitive doesn't necessarily equal unconstitutional. The court only gets a say regarding constitutionality, not regarding "sense". I don't care how "nice"
Well, that kind of gets to the point though. Sure its "nice" that they changed it but do the courts have the authority to change it. This is why people get nervous about "activist" courts because the court begins to serve the purpose of the legislature. The court's (at this level) only responsibility and authority is to judge the constitutionality of laws. Their opinion about the silliness of a law is irrelevant if it is constitutional. Legislatures write laws all the time that we all look at and say "well, that was stupid" or "that's a bad idea" or "that's a p.r. nightmare", but stupid, bad, and insensitive doesn't necessarily equal unconstitutional. The court only gets a say regarding constitutionality, not regarding "sense". I don't care how "nice" it would be to repeal some of the "blue" laws here in MN, the courts don't have authority (or, more correctly, grounds) to do it.
I appreciate that Dagna. You hit upon the only valid issue in your post. "Personally, I thought the law...didn't have a valid standing" That is the only thing the court can judge on. Everything else is outside of their power. Now, why do you feel the law didn't have valid standing?
it's sad isn't it?
i have always been amazed at the >6 law... i'm sure lots of people have more than six at home... and aren't "promoting" anything but their own agenda with them
