|
|
|
|
#1
10-03-06, 10:53 AM
|
||||
|
||||
Kurn, I'm not sure I understand your question.
The Full Faith and Credit clause has to do with one state honoring a judicial decision of another state (ie, a party who loses a case in Florida generally may not relitigate the case in Georgia; the Georgia courts are bound by the Florida ruling). Not sure how that could bring up the constitutionality of this Act. The Commerce Clause gives the federal government the right to preempt any state laws that regulate interstate commerce. Per this clause any matter relating to interstate commerce is in the exclusive domain of the federal government. Having said that, the clause does allow Congress to permit state regulations that would otherwise violate the Commerce Clause (e.g., allow them to come up with their own laws regulating on-line gambling). So, again, I'm not sure how this clause could be used as a means to declare the Act as being unconstitutional. Perhaps you have some examples you're thinking of?
__________________
GO GREEN!!! GO WHITE!!! |
|
#2
10-03-06, 11:20 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
No. You answered the question. They don't apply.
__________________
"Animals die, friends die, and I shall die. But the one thing that will never die is the reputation I leave behind." Old Norse adage |
|
#3
10-03-06, 11:35 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
If I was going to go after this law from the perspective of it being unconstitutional, I would attack it for being too vague. You might also be able to attack it for procedural flaws.
__________________
GO GREEN!!! GO WHITE!!! |
|
#4
10-03-06, 01:22 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
I don't think that works. The Constitution itself is vague in many points. But that's a different discussion.
__________________
"Animals die, friends die, and I shall die. But the one thing that will never die is the reputation I leave behind." Old Norse adage |
 |
|
|
Hybrid Mode
