Hacker News Reader

Comment by LatteLazy | Hacker News Reader

Sorry if I am missing something but... Why is this his problem?

If the legislature want to pass unconstitutional laws that will get struck down, at best he is saving the court sometime by vetoing it. But it is the legislature that is at fault for passing it, not him for failing to stop it, isn't it?

View on HN

He put his signature on the bill after taking this oath:

> I (Governor) do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of California against all enemies foreign and domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of California…

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Governor_of_California

A constitution is just a piece of paper. It only has meaning because people respect it. Passing a law you know violates a constitution is a direct attack on the rule of law itself, and should probably come with penalties attached. Certainly, the fact that politicians in the USA very regularly and blatantly pass laws they know will be struck down by the courts a few years later is one of the stronger arguments I've seen for why the UK shouldn't bother with setting up a written constitution. It's got no teeth. Governments can simply pass and enforce illegal laws, exploiting the lack of speed and capacity in the court system. Then when one gets struck down, just pass another in a similar way.

What you're suggesting for the UK sounds like a terrible argument. Without the constitution these terrible laws will never be struck down for being illegal because they wouldn't be illegal. Courts can, and do, issue injunctions to prevent laws from going into effect when they are likely to be struck down.

Well, I didn't say I agreed with it, just that it's one of the stronger arguments. Creating a constitution is a fraught project that requires referendums and the like, so people have to believe it works. If courts are willing to injunct unconstitutional laws then why didn't it happen here?

I'm not sure why it didn't happen here, but there are a lot of times where it does. Another article mentioned that no fines had been levied because of this law. That might be a reason it was allowed to stay in effect.

Presumably companies were simply complying rather than getting fined. Companies are generally way more law abiding than individuals, it's a rare legal department that would sign off on "let's ignore the law and hope it gets struck down before we get fined and dragged through the mud". Would that even be compatible with the rules around ensuring shareholder value?

Companies fail to comply with laws all the time. They suffer fines, recalls, and sometimes nothing for non-compliance. The Secretary of State at the time it was signed into law warned the Governor that it was unenforceable. The Secretary of states office testified during the trial that there was no intention of fining anyone over it.

Edit:

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/judge-says-california-...

Ok thanks, that's interesting. It sounds strange, but I can see how this isn't much of an argument against constitutions after all.

They're both at fault. Fault isn't zero-sum.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com