Hacker News Reader

Comment by frumper | Hacker News Reader

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.

View on HN

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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com