10q recap.

Here's a good question for the attorneys out there as a postscript to the Judicial Accountability Measure 10 questions:
If a constitutional amendment directly amends one part of the constitution, but another one is affected and not amended, is the constitutional amendment void, unenforceable, or is the entire constitution modified to comply?
I did well on my LSAT, but never attended law school, so if someone would oblige me....

Comments

Anonymous said…
let me get this straight then. The egg came first?
PP said…
Confusing, isn't it.

The amendment as presented modifies only a small, small part of the state constitution.

My question is - what about the rest that is contradicotry towards the amendment?
Anonymous said…
The amendment itself says it would trump contrary provisions in state statute or the SD Constitution. Yet another thing that makes it so nefarious--they get to disregard existing law, and their law is supreme.
Anonymous said…
Hello Power, welcome back to your rightful owners, the People...
Scary to the lawyers and special interest groups isn't it?
mjb said…
Couldn't their law be meat lovers instead of supreme?
Anonymous said…
you are cool
Wild Bill said…
Kook power. The rest of us like living under the rule of law. It looks to me like judges can lose their jobs just by having the kooks complaints construed against them (which the grand jury must do) even though they go to trial and are found innocent of wrong doing. I suggest that the people who vote for JAIL...if it passes, pay off the huge amounts the state will owe those who have had their constitutional rights violated by Amendment sleEzy rather than raising the tax rates on all...let those who erect that abusive system pay for it...oh, I forgot, they don't think that taxes are constitutional.

Popular posts from this blog

Breaking News: After the television commercial salvo fired at them, Vote Yes For Life Fires back.

Heidepreim: Republicans are the party of hate

The Day in politics - October 24th