Search results for query: *

This is why judges should legitimately examine whether any public health rationale legitimately holds up. As for people who refuse to get vaccinated, I have no problem with them playing Darwin's Game in theory but they should also be expected to give up their hospital beds to vaccinated people...

There really isn't a difference between taxes and a mob protection racket other than the fact that the former are supposed to go for the public good. Anyway, my overall point here is that it shouldn't matter how Congress *labels* something, only what it looks like. It can label it a tax...

But the difference is that Article V of the US Constitution didn't prohibit anything like the 18th Amendment!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Five_of_the_United_States_Constitution "The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a...

What exactly is the substantive difference between this and a tax, though? The Commerce Clause argument was a bad one, though; I'll grant you that. Yep, that's absolutely correct. And the judges in question can also be impeached for this and removed from office.

Even if the US constitution explicitly prohibits a particular amendment?

It's not about substantive *benefits*, but rather about the substantive *identity* of a particular provision, though. It won't become a part of the constitution if it's unconstitutional, though...

But I thought that the purpose of legal analysis was not to merely look at the form of a law, but also to look at its substance? Let's imagine it in the constitutional amendment context: Let's say that there will be a new US constitutional amendment passed through the normal process that would...

That's because the Biden DOJ is very soft on them. Isn't it a tax in a substantive sense, though?

What effect would striking down the entire statute have had in this specific case? Also, by your logic, if some Republican US state legislature wants to close half of the polling places in heavily Democratic areas in order to save money, then courts should not overturn this ruling because this...

I actually heard a QAnon conspiracy theory that Donald Trump is still in the White House but got facial surgery to make himself look like Joe Biden while the real Joe Biden is rotting in a federal jail somewhere! :D

Must courts obey legislatures' command in regards to the severability of a statute? In other words, if a statute explicitly states that its parts cannot be severed, and one part is found unconstitutional, then courts have to strike down the entire statute?

They could try coming up with some vague excuse about voter fraud or whatever. No one other than hardcore Trump supporters are actually going to buy this, of course.

*January 20, 2017.

TBH, I do think that there was a hope, however faint, that the US Supreme Court would keep Trump in power after he lost in 2020 by overturning the election results.

Yes, Yes, 'coz Democrats are the real racists! ;) :D

TBH, I think that January 6 could have been much more serious had Trump supporters actually come to the US Capitol *armed*. But Yeah, I was among those Leftists who did, in fact, criticize the Left's soft spot for Antifa and BLM thugs in the summer of 2020 and beyond. So, I can criticize both...

The Nazis were vile scum, but they had great fasion taste! ;) Much better than, say, ISIS!

Somewhat off-topic, but what I find interesting is how some US conservatives bragged about how the US brought democracy to Afghanistan and Iraq 15+ years ago but currently have their movement largely be silent and/or making excuses for the January 6 insurrectionists!