|
Disappointing disconnect
Quote:
Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Going back to re-read, I see your point. "Extend" can't happen initially by a court, and that would be interpreted also to mean a court can't require a legislatute to extend. Am I getting it? Although I don't think it would be a supremacy clause argument, but rather an interpretive exercise holding that "extend" can't be circumvented by imposing a requirment on a legislature to extend a la Mass. and Vt.
|
I think we're saying the same thing. If someone argued that the Nevada Supreme Court should apply Nevada's EP Clause to require the Nevada legislature to enact civil unions, the response would be that my amendment would preclude the Court from so doing. If the Nevada Court disagreed, this would be a federal question you could take to the U.S. Supreme Court.
__________________
“It was fortunate that so few men acted according to moral principle, because it was so easy to get principles wrong, and a determined person acting on mistaken principles could really do some damage." - Larissa MacFarquhar
|
