doctorow at January 15th, 2014 18:01 — #1
ratel at January 15th, 2014 18:52 — #2
Great! Now, who's going to jail?
retchdog at January 15th, 2014 19:00 — #3
Is it actually a crime to pass an unconstitutional law?
ratel at January 15th, 2014 19:02 — #4
I would have thought witness tampering was illegal.
retchdog at January 15th, 2014 19:07 — #5
Okay, fair enough, though that would, of course, require its own trial. (which, sadly, isn't going to happen.)
I'm still curious about whether there is any statutory penalty for passing an unconstitutional law.
dnebdal at January 15th, 2014 19:12 — #6
I assume that would put far too many of exactly the wrong people at risk to ever be allowed to remain on the books.
ratel at January 15th, 2014 19:33 — #7
Well, it would allow the Judiciary to jail people over political disagreements, which of course isn't cool. I guess the point is that probably all of what they did was legal under the "No-fly" provisions, which is just more reason why the whole thing is disgusting.
cronopio at January 15th, 2014 19:39 — #8
"A statutory penalty for passing an unconstitutional law?" No. Generally, only the judiciary can determine if a law is unconstitutional, and the judiciary can only make that determination on a law that exists and is brought before the court.
The corrective action or "penalty" should be to examine who voted for said law and/or who signed said law, and then vote for someone else in the next election cycle.
brainspore at January 15th, 2014 19:40 — #9
Judge immediately added to no-fly list
shuck at January 15th, 2014 19:47 — #10
"Hey, we've taken her off our secret 'no fly' list. Really we have. That she's still getting hassled by airport security is a complete coincidence"
-Something I expect the TSA to be saying very soon.
cocochichi at January 15th, 2014 20:16 — #11
Hey everybody, noob here. Can anybody inform me of the protocol for noticing/fixing typos in articles around here? Thanks
joeblough at January 15th, 2014 20:21 — #12
don't you have the passwords for boingboing's backend? the rest of us do.
jons at January 15th, 2014 20:52 — #13
'Yes, Your Honor, we have removed her from the list, and I hereby certify under oath that we have done so.'
'Ok Minion, we've done what we were required to do, so put her back on the list now.'
jonaseggeater at January 15th, 2014 20:56 — #14
Honestly, I haven't bothered looking into that myself, since typos, etc are pretty rare from what I've seen. I would contact one of the mods though. @beschizza would probably be the person to talk to.
shash at January 15th, 2014 22:15 — #15
I don't know about the US, but here, if the government tried to do that, the court would slap a contempt of court case on them pretty quick. Courts don't like to be slighted like that.
raoul at January 16th, 2014 11:12 — #16
That's the funniest thing I have read in a long time.
Unfortunately, you weren't being funny - in the US it doesn't work like that at all. There will be no sanctions on the DHS people who lied to the court and prevented witnesses from traveling to the trial, and I fully expect that "new information" will put the plaintiff and everyone associated with her back on the double secret no fly list within days after being removed.
Or the DHS will simply lie again and say she's been removed without doing anything at all.
chrisd6t at January 16th, 2014 12:09 — #17
I have been following this case for a while. It is a great read and very reassuring to see common sense prevail in the end.
One thing that struck me was that it was likely that people inside the government were actually trying to have this court case come out the way it did. While we may joke or more, that the lawyers for the government may have been below board, I doubt that is really the case. I suspect they played the hand they were given and that anonymous government employees behind the scenes surreptitiously did things to convey and clarify the problem. For example putting the daughter on the no-fly list. From the lawyers perspective there was little damage she could have done by testifying that she saw her mother getting refused access to a flight, that was pretty much going to be a given, but her being entered on the no-fly list was dynamite. Any government has good and perhaps not so people in it, and I suspect we saw both sides at work here.
gyrofrog at January 16th, 2014 12:42 — #18
retchdog at January 16th, 2014 15:04 — #19
The correct protocol is: don't.
doctorow at January 20th, 2014 18:01 — #20
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.