From: 00rdharringt@leo.bsuvc.bsu.edu (Rob Harrington)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy,talk.politics.misc,misc.legal
Subject: Re: LBJ's anti-nepotism law (was: Hillary will not...)
Date: 20 Nov 92 13:01:28 GMT
Organization: Ball State University

In article <1992Nov20.014525.853@cs.ucla.edu>, pierce@lanai.cs.ucla.edu (Brad Pierce) writes:
> In article <1992Nov19.232131.8881@midway.uchicago.edu> thf2@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
> 
>>There are no such states to my knowledge.  There are some states, such
>>as Massachusetts, where the Supreme Court of the state may offer advisory
>>opinions on pending legislation.  One of these advisory opinions led Dukakis
>>to make his now-infamous veto of the mandatory pledge of allegiance in
>>the public schools.
> 
> Why is his veto now "infamous"?
> 
I'm assuming the it's now imfamous because of the 88 election...

>>There's a good case to be made for not reviewing legislation until
>>someone who is actually aggrieved by the legislation challenges it.
> 
> Is there also a good case for passing and signing unconstitutional
> legislation that
> 
>    (1) aggrieved parties are unlikely to dare challenge
> or
>    (2) aggrieves only parties without the means to mount an effective
>        legal challenge?
> 
> Why can't *any* US citizen challenge the constitutionality of a Federal
> law? If the "anti-nepotism" law is unconstitutional, then it arguably
> aggrieves not only a USA President who wants to make full use of the
> talents of a highly qualified relative, but also all those US citizens
> who want the US Constitution to be the highest law of the land.
> 
The way I understand it, you have to have some reason to challenge it...

For example, you can't wake up in the morning and decide that you'll challenge
Johnson's Anti-Nepotism law if your not affected by it.  Here's a scenerio...
Bill nominates Hillary to be AG, and for some unknown reason she confirmed by
the Senate.  Sen Dole could then make use of this law and tell her either her
or Bill must go.  Bill could then take it up with the Supreme Court on
the grounds that it's unconstitutional, after all it's his rights being 
violated as Chief Executive.  But it wouldn't come before the Court until
it happens...     

> Incidentally, has the War Powers Act ever been challenged?

Well, it's never been really tested.  Desert Storm was the first time since
the War Powers Act that it could have been invoked.  But Bush got approval
of Congress which eliminated the War Powers Act.  Remember that the Commander
in Chief can use his forces as he likes for 90days, after that he must get
approval from Congress.  That is if the WPA is constitutional...

-- 
/---------------------------------------v-------------------------------------\
|  Rob Harrington                       |              Ball State University  |
|  Department of History                |               Muncie, Indiana, USA  |
|  Vax--00RDHARRINGT@leo.bsuvc.bsu.edu  |       Unix--herring@bsu-cs.bsu.edu  |
>---------------------------------------^-------------------------------------<
|                                Clinton/Gore '92                             |
|                  Ball State University - University Democrats               |
|                Not a spokesperson - REPEAT - Not a spokesperson             |
\-----------------------------------------------------------------------------/