PILOT SPIN
Spin Zone => Spin Zone => Topic started by: Jaybird180 on February 19, 2016, 07:54:21 AM
-
I was listening to a radio program this morning and it got me thinking about a problem that I have been unable to yet solve. The question is related to (willful) procedural error (in law, gov't, etc). The radio program was an interview with a lady (law professor) who knew Justice Anton Scalia on a personal and professional level and she said that for 30 years she would buy him lunch and she would teach her class once per year, and they did this annually.
He would start the lecture off with, 'I'm here to tell you why everything you learned from Prof. (name?) is wrong...' "She tells you about the Living Constitution, I'm here to tell you about the Dead Constitution."
Suffice to say, they had different interpretations on the role of government and how to read legislative intent. During the interview she prefaced many statements with 'what I think vs what Justice Scalia would say' and I found it fascinating that personal philosophy becomes an integral part of the law.
So, back to my solution- are there already codified remedies for procedural error?
-
I'm not sure what you mean by remedies for procedural error, but I think that when SCOTUS makes a ruling that may alter what a law states, then the law should automatically have to be forced to be re-written and passed again. Ruling something as unconstituional, such as banning gay marriage, shouldn't be an automatic act to allow gay marriage (which I really don't care if they do), but should force the states/feds to re-write their laws.
-
Looking for an example to explain my question, I think I may have found my answer. The courts are supposed to be the guardians of the rules and procedures and remedies are effected by appeals to the courts. I'm going to give this more thought to see if it's applicable to the situation that I'm trying to resolve.
-
Somewhat related question: There was much argument over what rights the Gitmo detainees should have. At first they were denied the right to have any court oversight of their arrest and detention. This has also happened to US Citizens under the Bush (Jose Padilla) and Obama administrations (Awlaki). What can we do as citizens to prevent further erosions of structural necessities?
-
I was listening to a radio program this morning and it got me thinking about a problem that I have been unable to yet solve. The question is related to (willful) procedural error (in law, gov't, etc). The radio program was an interview with a lady (law professor) who knew Justice Anton Scalia on a personal and professional level and she said that for 30 years she would buy him lunch and she would teach her class once per year, and they did this annually.
He would start the lecture off with, 'I'm here to tell you why everything you learned from Prof. (name?) is wrong...' "She tells you about the Living Constitution, I'm here to tell you about the Dead Constitution."
Suffice to say, they had different interpretations on the role of government and how to read legislative intent. During the interview she prefaced many statements with 'what I think vs what Justice Scalia would say' and I found it fascinating that personal philosophy becomes an integral part of the law.
So, back to my solution- are there already codified remedies for procedural error?
Yeah, it's called an "Appeal".
-
Somewhat related question: There was much argument over what rights the Gitmo detainees should have. At first they were denied the right to have any court oversight of their arrest and detention. This has also happened to US Citizens under the Bush (Jose Padilla) and Obama administrations (Awlaki). What can we do as citizens to prevent further erosions of structural necessities?
Enemy combatants captured on the battlefield are owed "court oversight of their arrest and detention?"
I think I see where the procedural error resides.
-
I really should have separated the two ideas of Gitmo detainees versus deprivation of rights of Citizens in my post. I can see how the issues would become confused and the arguments would become a furball. So let's just go with the example I gave about deprived rights to a Citizen.