Last edited Thu Nov 7, 2013, 11:38 AM - Edit history (2)
kristopher,
WRONG again!!
kristopher states
If the legislators hadn't made safety arguments part of the discussion when debating the law, they would have won.
The above is a poor parroting of the losing argument from the State; that the
case revolved around whether the legislature had strayed from any legal basis for
passing the laws they did. Evidently, kristopher doesn't understand that the Appeals
Court DISMISSED that line of reasoning.
WRONG - they would NOT have won. The US Supreme Court recently decided a case
National Meat Association v. Harris which concerned a California law that regulated
the meat industry. California argued that they had a legitimate right to pass laws that
regulated the humane treatment of animals.
Justice Elana Kagan who wrote the decision agreed that California had the power to
regulate humane treatment of animals; but nonetheless even when a state has
a legitimate power that power is TRUMPED by federal law if the state law
conflicts with federal law. She stated that to not uphold federal trumping of state
law would make a mockery of the US Constitution's supremacy clause; she said a
state could always find some legal basis for doing what they did. Nonetheless, it
DOESN'T MATTER if the state is on firm legal footing; if they pass a law
contrary to the federal law, the US Constitution says federal law TRUMPS
http://www.vermontlaw.edu/News_and_Events/News/Prof_Hanna_Picks_US_Supreme_Court_Cases_Vermonters_Should_Watch.htm
Professor Hanna of the Vermont Law School SUCCESSFULLY predicted the outcome of
the VY Appeal; something that kristopher got 100% WRONG.
PamW
= new reply since forum marked as read
