Well presented and true. All it would have taken is any one Congressman that voted against HERA to file a constitutional lawsuit seeking overturn, which would have moved quickly through the court and appeals court and cost only scant taxpayer resources to resolve. This happens all the time and often lead to laws being either overturned or seriously modified to conform with Constitutional law. This is precisely what happened during the Voting Rights Act controversy that conservative Republicans won in appeals court, thwarting the Democrats to preserve the act in five states that were ruled ineligible by the courts.
I view HERA as a constitutional law that was executed - implemented - administered in such fashion as to become unconstitutional at that point in time that the third amendment was implemented . I view the "action" as unconstitutional. I believe you are saying if one finds the GOV violated the constitution - then HERA is unconstitutional. I think we have hit same difference
Re can a constitutional issue trump the immunity clause - I know the Penn or U of P citation you gave and I know the various links I showed you ... and it is my conclusion based on ambiguous information that the judges have no reason to a priori think they are barred from acting. I admit this is my conclusion from reading material that was all conjecture and theory - even if based on Stare Decisis type references and thinking
I would love to be surprised by POTUS one day but feel the risk on the court side is at least 50-50 to the good
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
