From reading the preamble (that's as far as I've gotten with work)
Posted by
spamlet
Jun 25 '13, 07:53
|
The law was originally upheld as *not* an imperssible override of federalism because it was temporary and the nature of the formula showed that the Act was necessary.
Given that there have been 2 25 year extensions (showing a lack of temporaryness) with no update to the formula to show why the Act is necessary in those locations, the Court seemed to indicate that the override to Federalism is no longer permissible.
They could have gone a lot farther and struck down the entire Act as unconstitutional. They didn't do that and made a rational case for why they did what they did.
Again, I'm not a legal scholar but it seems like there's an easy fix here. Update the formula and the Act is back in service.
Whether that's possible politically is obviously another story. But as you've said, politics shouldn't be the Court's perview.
|
Responses:
|