Letters to the Editor
a high-falutin' lawyer
Published Letters: 2
-
Judicial Review and Advisory Opinions
[Read the article: The "option" of checks and balances]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]What strikes me, in my own intellectually provincial way, as the most interesting feature of this proposed legislation is the provision that will submit the legislation to the FISA Court (FISC) for review. The prohibition against rendering advisory legal opinions is an axiomatic principle of the american judicial system. The Supreme Court has always maintained that it, and all other Article III courts, are constitutionally required to review and adjudicate only "cases and controversies" between parties; Article III Sec. 2 provides that the judicial power of the U.S. reaches only cases and controversies. Hence, for more than two centuries, American courts have refused to issue "advisory opinions" -- i.e. advising whether or not a given practice or piece of legislation is valid in the abstract. In order to exercise judicial power, the Article III courts of the United States must examine a ripe, unmooted case or controversy between parties with standing. It is extremely puzzling to me, as an attorney, that the legislation under consideration contains the much-touted referral to FISC for "judicial review," which amounts to requiring FISC to issue an advisory opinion. This is almost certainly unconstitutional.
However, legislation enacted pursuant to the constitution is still, as a baseline rule, subject to judicial review once the normal criteria for bringing suit requiring judicial review have been met.
-
Oh dear
[Read the article: Quote of the Day]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]What constitutes "treason" is specifically spelled out in the US Constitution (it's the ONLY crime defined in the document because the framers intended it to be extremely difficult to convict a person of treason in this country).
The US Constitution says:
"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court."
(Article III, Section 3)
I suppose DeLay may have an extremely skewed idea of what "aid and comfort" means. But we know that his interpretation of the phrase, whatever it is, is wrong because we can read and understand the English language.