From: mykes@amiga0.SF-Bay.ORG (Mike Schwartz)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Why Bush would/will burn for the delay in florida
Distribution: usa
X-NewsSoftware: GRn 1.16f (beta) by Mike Schwartz & Michael B. Smith
Date: 12 Sep 92 15:09:07 PST
Organization: Amiga makes it possible

In article <1992Sep12.180430.3767@newsgate.sps.mot.com> titmas@chdasic.sps.mot.com (Eric Titmas) writes:
> In article <mykes.0dp6@amiga0.SF-Bay.ORG>, mykes@amiga0.SF-Bay.ORG (Mike Schwartz) writes:
> |> > For the Supreme Court to make a decision there must be a case or controversy.  I.e.
> |> > a law must be broken and somebody tried for it's violation before the courts will
> |> > rule on whether that law is constitutional.
> |> >
> |>
> |> The Supreme Court is an appeals court - the highest in the land.  However, Article III,
> |> Section 2 of the constitution reads:
> |>
> |> 	The Judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising
> |> 	under this constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties
> |> 	made, or which shall be made, under their authority; to all caess
> |> 	affecting ambassadors, other public ministers, and consuls; to all
> |> 	cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction; to controversies to which
> |> 	the United States shall be a party; to controversies between two or
> |> 	more states; between citizens of different states; between citizens of
> |> 	the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and
> |> 	between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens,
> |> 	or subjects.
> |>
> |> It seems to me that this case certainly arises under the constutition...
>
> Which case?  The term case has been interpreted to mean a trial.  When someone is
> convicted they can appeal claiming the law they broke is uncomstitutional.  Noone
> has been charged with breaking any Boland amendment.
>

Ronald Reagan v United States would have been the case.  Whether the court would have
heard the case is another question - they turn down far more cases than they listen
to...

> |> > In the U.S. the federal courts do not issue advisory opinions.
> |>
> |> Also true.  Appelate courts do not do this kind of thing.
>

I would point out that recently, a woman came into the US carrying the RU486 pill.
The pills were confiscated by customs - understandably.  The woman was about 7 weeks
pregnant, and the pills are useable through the 8th or 9th week...  Anyhow, she asked
Clarence Thomas to intercede in her behalf.  Thomas directed the Bush administration
to explain why she shouldn't have the pills.  The administration complied and the
court found the administration's explanation to be acceptable.  Due to the importance
of a quick resolution to the question, the court acted.  And it was very much an
advisory opinion, since there was no court case.  I offer this example not in any
way to debate the specifics of the case, but only as an example.


> --
> Eric Titmas      Motorola ASIC       titmas@chdasic.sps.mot.com
>
> It is impossible to take in more money than Congress can spend.  - Thomas Sowell

--
Amiga programmer of: GRn, MailMinder, Budokan, Beyond Dark Castle, Dark Castle
Sega Genesis programmer of: Dick Tracy and Marble Madness.
Mike Schwartz  (ames!zorch!amiga0!mykes or mykes@amiga0.sf-bay.org)
1124 Fremont Ave.
Los Altos, CA 94024

Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:4895 alt.politics.clinton:5133 alt.politics.elections:12965