Re: CHAT: "La Bandera Estrellada"

bjm10@CORNELL.EDU wrote:

> On Fri, 4 Aug 2000, Thomas R. Wier wrote:
>
> > Presumably having it in a state's consitutition would be proof against
> > tampering by the Supreme Court, but I haven't read many of the relevant
>
> Depends on the individual Supreme Court in question.
Right, but that's always true. The current Supreme Court is extremely
gung-ho on restoring states' rights.  They recently allowed Washington
state to set different tariff rates than other states on foreign shipping so as to
pay for its inspection services.  This isn't as wild as it may sound;  I mean, the
constitution does say

    "No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or
    Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary
    for executing it's inspection Laws...." (Article I, Section 10, Clause 2)

But the more liberal courts earlier in the century like that of Earl Warren would
have just ignored that section outright.  Moreover, it was explained to me once
that the only reason Missouri is allowed to draw its districts according to geography
rather than population density is because it's written into the state's constitution.
So, both current political climate and past legal precedent seem to side against
tampering with a State's constitution.

======================================
Tom Wier   |     "Cogito ergo sum, sed credo ergo ero."
======================================