About CDon


1 friends
Follow   644 comments   Followed by 1   Following 1   Ignored by 1   Ignoring 0   Ignore CDon
Registered Mar 08, 2012

CDon's most recent comments:

  • On Tue, 3 Nov 2015, 2:48pm PST in Longer video of girl in S. Carolina being forcibly removed from seat, CDon said:

    Further reading for those interested - many of these exceptions were developed by Louis Brandies, the progressive stalwart and champion for the little guy during the depression era of SCOTUS and his response to the other master of his era - John Marshall the architect of Ex Parte Randolph which had a huge impact on the Constitution, post 1833

    "In Ex parte Randolph, the Chief Justice, while riding circuit, considered a challenge to a congressional act which provided that Treasury agents could issue warrants for military officers charged with disbursing public funds who failed to pay and settle their accounts at the Treasury Department. The court concluded that the terms of the act did not apply to an officer temporarily acting as the ship's purser due to the death of the regularly commissioned purser and granted his petition for habeas corpus.[3] Justice Louis D. Brandeis's concurring opinion in Ashwander provides the most significant formulation of the avoidance doctrine, even though the Brandeis formulation had no effect on the outcome of the case because the Justice concurred in the plurality opinion, and the plurality considered and decided the properly presented constitutional issues"

    LOL - pretty simple stuff right? good thing none of this is complicated like the DaVinci Code!

  • On Tue, 3 Nov 2015, 2:38pm PST in Longer video of girl in S. Carolina being forcibly removed from seat, CDon said:

    Full disclosure here. Now that I am thinking about this again, perhaps the delay in Loving was not because of the "ripeness" doctrine, but a similar one known as the Avoidance Doctrine which "dictates that a federal court should refuse to rule on a constitutional issue if the case can be resolved on a nonconstitutional basis." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_avoidance

    It has been years since I review this, but there are very subtle yet very important distinctions between certain "exceptions" to the rules known colloquially as

    Mootness Doctrine
    Ripeness Doctrine
    Constitutional Avoidance
    the Pullman Abstention
    Adequate and Independent State Grounds, and
    the Aswander Concurrence

    I had completely forgotten about all them because they are very similar in result, but apply in very very different set of circumstances - I only took one year of Con Law, and I knew this wasn't going to be my field of practice.

  • On Tue, 3 Nov 2015, 1:23pm PST in Longer video of girl in S. Carolina being forcibly removed from seat, CDon said:

    Dan8267 says

    Yet CDon would say that society is incapable of doing that because few people understand the subtleties of "all persons are equal under law". So progress can never be made. That's why I reject his world view. Corrections to mistakes made by government must be advocated by every individuals who recognizes them.

    This I agree with. However, what you are saying here is a distinction from my earlier point which was once again missed. Specifically courts can do this only when asked, and further, the ripeness doctrine requires an actual case or controversy which was absent for many years in Loving. So when something is not in front of the court, the hope is, someone lower down the line will fix it so only the most important issues get to the courts. For example, lets go back to my real life situation in post 87 which I asked you to find the obvious flaw:


    The way this played out was as follows:
    1. The constitutionally fatal law was passed by a bunch of well meaning, but not constitutionally proficient people in late 2012.
    2. In 2014 they hired me as their first ever staff counsel
    3. In 2015, I noticed the flaw from before my time, made a few phone calls to the city attorney, and we fixed it.
    4. In the intervening years of unconstitutionality (2012-2015), no one was arrested, no one was prosecuted, in fact even no one was charged. It had no impact on the society whatsoever as fewer than say 100 people knew it existed.
    5. Thankfully, there was no "case" therefore we didn't have to involve the courts, giving them time to work on real problems and real injuries.

    In a nutshell, this is my "repugnant world view" this is my "world of loopholes and gotchas" for which you said we would have to agree to disagree. When I said the words "ripeness doctrine" it invokes in the minds of those who have a working grasp of the constitutional rules and exceptions exactly this sort of 1-5 situation identified above. Yet, because you have yet to get familiar enough with anything other than the text of the Constitution itself, you assumed all sorts of nefarious intent that was not there.

    Now that you see an example of the ripeness doctrine in real life - please point to the problem with my worldview.

home   top   share   link sharer   users   register   best comments   about   Debt Is Slavery