Yesterday, a couple of briefs were filed in Young v. Hawaii. One was an opposition to Young's motion to file a supplemental brief and the other was a motion by the State of Hawaii to file a supplemental Amicus brief.
The Amicus brief is more relevant as it exposes another fatal flaw in the case.
Most people are unaware that the courts have erected a procedural law minefield between unconstitutional laws and people who file lawsuits to have those unconstitutional laws overturned. Contrary to the magistrate judge's conclusion in my California Open Carry lawsuit, it is not necessary to break a law in order to challenge a law nor is it necessary for a state official who is has the authority to enforce the law required to personally threaten a plaintiff with arrest, prosecution fine and imprisonment.
What is required, at a minimum, is to assert an intention to engage in a course of conduct which violates the challenged law.
Also, the law has to be a law which is actually being enforced. There are lots of laws on the books which haven't been enforced in decades. If there is no "recent" history of enforcement or it is impossible to show a likelihood of enforcement then the Federal courts are going to toss the lawsuit for a lack of "standing."
For those interested in reading the filings, they are under my July 12, 2016 update at my website here.
The Amicus brief is more relevant as it exposes another fatal flaw in the case.
Most people are unaware that the courts have erected a procedural law minefield between unconstitutional laws and people who file lawsuits to have those unconstitutional laws overturned. Contrary to the magistrate judge's conclusion in my California Open Carry lawsuit, it is not necessary to break a law in order to challenge a law nor is it necessary for a state official who is has the authority to enforce the law required to personally threaten a plaintiff with arrest, prosecution fine and imprisonment.
What is required, at a minimum, is to assert an intention to engage in a course of conduct which violates the challenged law.
Also, the law has to be a law which is actually being enforced. There are lots of laws on the books which haven't been enforced in decades. If there is no "recent" history of enforcement or it is impossible to show a likelihood of enforcement then the Federal courts are going to toss the lawsuit for a lack of "standing."
For those interested in reading the filings, they are under my July 12, 2016 update at my website here.
Young v. Hawaii
0 commentaires:
Enregistrer un commentaire