User talk:DarrenLarsen

Post messages about articles I edit here. Please send messages about my shows through ABC. Thank you.

Patriot Act

The article you referenced in your argument that the Patriot Act is not a law backs the position that it is, at this time, a law. Until it is declared unconstitutional, it is a law. At the moment it is declared unconstitutional, it is retroactively considered to be, as the article puts it, an unconstitutional law. Still, the word "law" is used. Further, the sentence states that it was "signed into law", which is what Bush did. By signing it, he is performing the legal act of "signing into law". It is not the legal act of "signing into act". He is capable of signing into law an act that is later consider unconstitutional. -- kainaw™ 20:46, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Read it again. "An unconstitutional statute is not a 'law', and should not be called a 'law', even if it is sustained by a court, for a finding that a statute or other official act is constitutional does not make it so, or confer any authority to anyone to enforce it."

No congressman will call the USA PATRIOT Act a "law" because that would be taking personal responsibility for guaranteeing its constitutionality. Calling something a "law" in context of its applicability to the people when its constitutionality is clearly in question is fraud. It can cause monetary damages, and it opens one up to lawsuits. Members of the Congress are smart enough to refer to it as "an Act." Wikipedia should follow their lead and take no side in whether it is constitutional. --DarrenLarsen (talk) 21:14, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

You are misreading it. An unconstitutional statute is a statute which has already been declared unconstitutional. The Supreme Court decides if it is unconstitutional. Not you. Not some congressman. Not a group of talking heads on late-night news channels. Until it is declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, it is constitutional. Once declared unconstitutional by the supreme court, it is retroactively declared to be "not a law". Also, notice how that reference repeatedly refers to "unconstitutional laws". That doesn't exist. No law is unconstitutional. So, there can be no unconstitutional laws. Therefore, whomever wrote it was purposely being vague about the whole issue. -- kainaw™ 14:20, 11 February 2011 (UTC)