Dr.Traveler
Mathematician
- Aug 31, 2009
- 3,948
- 652
- 190
I suspect, given what IS in the Constitution, that the courts were intended to simply decide individual cases brought to them according to the prevailing law. If the lower law contradicts, say, the Constitution, then the case is decided according to the Constitution. That's fine. But I think it's inappropriate for the courts to "strike down" laws, or issue decisions declaring a law Unconstitutional.
Except that's a logical consequence of two things:
1. The Judicial Hierarchy: Case in point the Constitution lays out the Supreme Court as the Highest Court In the Land.
2. Legal Precedent: Namely that Courts tend to follow past rulings, especially those of higher courts.
So if the Supreme Court strikes down a conviction because they see the law in question as being in contradiction to the Constitution, lower courts are bound by that ruling.
In addition, if a judge outlines what it would take for a law to be Constitutional, why not?
As far as "striking down" a law, if the Supreme Court says that no one arrested for violation of a given law will be actually convicted, why keep the law on the book?
I do think that the Court should only be ruling on cases that come before them. I think asking the Courts to preemptively rule is out of hand. I thought that though before Bush v. Gore. I still think that now. Where the Court got off pre-empting the Constitutional methods to decide an election in question were beyond me.