Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Obenberger
King, that's just not how it works. Lawyers don't get a roving commission to contest every part of the law. It depends on aggrieved clients who want to challenge something that affects them. To challenge a law, you must have "standing", which means a concrete connection to the provision you are challenging. When taxpayers attempted to challenge that part of the income tax that funded the Vietnam War, they were thrown out of court. Without that connection, you cannot stay in court. It must be a very particularized connection. In some historic cases, the Supreme Court has held that only Congress itself has standing to challenge some executive orders. There is no system by which each and every law gets routinely strutinized by some panel of lawyers and gets challenged in court. No, the passage of time really doesn't have anything to do with it. It's a very tiny part of the statutes that have ever been brought to court for a determination of validity.
|
L am pretty much aware of all that you have stated and understand what you have stated...but I was being somewhat facetious...for as many people that I have heard complain about how the Patriot Act has trampled on their rights...and the amount of time that has passed...it just seems that every provision would have been challenged in court by now.
BTW what is your thinking about military courts compared to civilian courts.