Skip to main content

View Diary: Did Snowden Break Any Laws? An Analysis w/Poll (95 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  EVERY law is presumed constitutional (4+ / 0-)

    until a court rules on its constitutionality. But if a law is ultimately ruled "unconstitutional," that doesn't mean it WAS constitutional up until the ruling. Surely, you can understand that. (Apologies for calling you Shirley.)

    A law can indeed be, and frequently is, both legal and unconstitutional. It's just that its unconstitutional status is not known until it's ruled upon.

    Take note: If you and I are engaged in a heated exchange, disabuse yourself of the notion that I'm trying (futilely) to win you over. My goal is to persuade the hundreds of non-commenting observers who've yet to make up their minds.

    by WisePiper on Sun Jul 14, 2013 at 03:11:15 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  Don't mean to quibble (0+ / 0-)

      but if a law is subsequently determined to be unconsitutional, wouldn't that mean that it was never actually a valid law (legal) in the first place?

      In any event, all courts who have looked at FISA both before and after the Patriot Act amendments have ruled it constitutional.

      You're free to disagree with those rulings, of course, but I think you should acknowledge their existence.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site