Dude. You just said that Congress passed a law that cannot be repealed. Think about what that means for a second.
Now think about it again. Real hard. Don't go there. All laws passed by Congress can be repealed and they need to able to be repealed. You cannot bind a future Congress. The only way to achieve something close to that is to amend the Constitution. The Dick Act did not do that. You could argue (you'd be wrong but you could argue) that it merely reaffirmed something in the Constitution. If it only restated something in the Constitution, then the law is meaningless and can be repealed without effect because the Constitution trumps it anyway. If it does anything else, well, then it is a normal law and can be repealed. You absolutely do not want to start saying things like Congress can pass a law that cannot be repealed. Let's hope the authors of the NDAA don't start listening to these legal theories, ok? Judah On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 8:04 PM, LRS Scout <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hey Eric, a little reading on the Dick Act: > > GUN CONTROL FORBIDDEN --- bit of History > > (While some cite the passage date of HR 11654 as June 28, 1902, others > state January 1903) > The Militia Act of 1903 , also known as the Dick Act, was initiated by > United States Secretary of War Elihu Root following the Spanish–American > War of 1898 . > > U.S. Senator Charles W. F. Dick, a Major General in the Ohio National Guard > and the chair of the Committee on the Militia, sponsored the 1903 Act > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now! http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusion Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:360370 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/unsubscribe.cfm
