Jump to content
The Political Lounge

Future Supreme Court Cases for AMPU


vcczar

Recommended Posts

This isn’t era-specific, but one imagines the open constitutional question of whether a former President could run for and/or serve as Vice President after two full terms in the Oval Office would come up at some point. It’s question constitutional law professors debated in 2000 for a Gore/Clinton ticket, and one that came up again in 2020 for a Biden/Obama ticket. Given this game, it’s not beyond imagination that a two-term President goes on to serve in the line of succession elsewhere, as Speaker of the House or a member of the Cabinet.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It seems like issues of federalism are definitely coming back

To be specific - government regulation of the oil and natural gas industries will probably become an issue. Maybe 20 years from now a carbon tax gets challenged at the Supreme Court.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe that this will eventually have to be addressed in the Supreme Court. This shouldn't be a case in 2090 or 2080 but somewhere in 2030 or 2040. The case should be the interpretation of  "a well regulated militia" in the second amendment. This has been a line used by both sides of the gun debate and would be very interesting to see the side effect of. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This has some real world basis, but something about people legally incorporating and then merging their assets as an alternative to marriage.  It's a major way communes/polyamorous groups share assets and I can see it becoming hot button depending on how an alternative timeline's gay marriage cases go.  Or maybe even in our own future.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just as Marriage Equality was the Equal Protection cause of the 1990s, 2000s and 2010s, I imagine that Trans Rights (right to privacy, access to surgery) is going to be a hot button for 14th amendment folks in the next two decades.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Cal said:

A good idea might be to create hypothetical cases overturning existing precedent, and additionally cases that have the court answer a constitutional question that is currently left unaddressed.

The constitutional question suggestion is definitely a good one.

 

Here are some that I can think of off the top of my head:

Is secession constitutional?

Can Congress delegate its responsibilities to the executive branch?

Can the President pardon himself?

Can the President issue blanket pardons?

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, jvikings1 said:

The constitutional question suggestion is definitely a good one.

 

Here are some that I can think of off the top of my head:

Is secession constitutional?

Can Congress delegate its responsibilities to the executive branch?

Can the President pardon himself?

Can the President issue blanket pardons?

Didn't the Texas case in the 1860s take care of the first one?  Other than that good list.

I had a few more ideas when falling asleep last night, inspired by the comment that Federalism issues are making a comeback.

1)  Limits on States to found Underwater Sea colonies in oceanic territorial waters (could see the federal government claiming a very strict exclusion zone away from the shore) (Inspired by the NY vs NJ "who owns Liberty Island/Ellis Island" cases)

2) Regulation of flying cars.  Might be more a congressional issue, but could see the higher stakes of flying vehicles forcing a federal case about license reciprocity, which currently is by loose agreement anyway not really anything too formal.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, jvikings1 said:

The constitutional question suggestion is definitely a good one.

 

Here are some that I can think of off the top of my head:

Is secession constitutional?

Can Congress delegate its responsibilities to the executive branch?

Can the President pardon himself?

Can the President issue blanket pardons?

I am pretty sure that the first one was solved by Texas v. White.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, A man from Colorado said:

I am pretty sure that the first one was solved by Texas v. White.

That addressed unilateral secession.

But can Congress grant the wishes of a state to secede? The Constitution does not mention that as a possibility which leaves it in the hands of the Court. One would assume they would allow a mutual agreement to go through, but it is not out of the question to see people oppose such a move and to try to use the courts to stop it from happening.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, jvikings1 said:

That addressed unilateral secession.

But can Congress grant the wishes of a state to secede? The Constitution does not mention that as a possibility which leaves it in the hands of the Court. One would assume they would allow a mutual agreement to go through, but it is not out of the question to see people oppose such a move and to try to use the courts to stop it from happening.

Ah, okay, yeah, now that's an interesting question.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe Texas v. White had a statement tucked away in the majority opinion that if all the other states agreed, secession would be okay.

 

A possible court case would be whether Confederate soldiers are United States Veterans. Under current federal law they are, but with the current attitudes towards the South, I could see that getting revisited.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Willthescout7 said:

I believe Texas v. White had a statement tucked away in the majority opinion that if all the other states agreed, secession would be okay.

 

A possible court case would be whether Confederate soldiers are United States Veterans. Under current federal law they are, but with the current attitudes towards the South, I could see that getting revisited.

they are all dead however by the time that the future rolls around.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, A man from Colorado said:

they are all dead however by the time that the future rolls around.

While true, that isn't the issue at hand. 1. If they aren't veterans, the country has to make a decision about whether they were states in rebellion or if secession is legal. They can't have it both ways anymore. 2. The decision could antagonize the South, where many of them have ancestors who fought in the war. To say that they weren't veterans would matter to them. 3. If military burial grounds start to fill up, and the nation decides that confederates weren't veterans, then they can disinter them and bury them somewhere else. Again, the South will be up in arms. 

Is it a huge deal? Not really, but a thorny subject.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So the best time for me to think of these is as I'm falling asleep.  Some more gems from last night, mostly revolving around private space craft.

1)  Formally decide just where national airspace "ends" and "space" begins.  This is very much an open question, one space junkies love to speculate on, and one in which there's a few legal opinions that differ on as well, but there's really no firm precedent, as for the moment, it doesn't really matter.  Once we get more private space traffic, or even more national space traffic, it *will* eventually matter.  Has the possibility to intersect with international treaty too.

2)  I could see some case involving private space shipping and docking rights if something similar to the Jones Act, but for space colonies, ever passes.  Basically, give us the Space Jones Act pls and make a court case about it. (TBH half the things I say in this thread could just be leg proposals if you want)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A couple other debates on a number of intense ethical questions:

- on the Right to Euthanasia/assisted suicide

- rights of downloaded intelligence, if we get to the singularity

- restrictions on birth (China 's one child policy) if overpopulation is a concern 

 

Edited by 10centjimmy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thinking on this again, I can see a court case overturning Reynolds V United States

The reason is because that judges are taking more and more into account the intent behind legislation, not just what it says. Using that logic, the Reynolds Case won't hold up to a challenge since the law that it is based on was intended to be a religious barrier and to attack mormons.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...