re: #97 Sergey Romanov

OK, then here’s a possibly stupid question: doesn’t the Constitution (including the SCOTUS interpretations) have the direct application, meaning that whether the law will pass or not, it will be inapplicable in practice? Sort of if some state decided to dispose of the Miranda rights and passed a law, wouldn’t that law be directly irrelevant to anything since so obviously unconstitutional?

Not quite. The law, as passed, would apply *at least* up until the point it was challenged in court (Give or take, this can be a bit iffy in some cases). At that point, several things could happen. A judge could issue an injunction prevent enforcement of the law on the assumption that it was unconstitutional, which may or may not be left in place on an appeal. The judge could quickly rule the law unconstitutional, at which point an injunction may or may not be placed on it for appeals.

After that, it would work its way up the courts until it either is ruled upon by whatever court would have final say in the matter being challenged or when all remaining appeals are turned down (When applicable). It could also continue on longer and on a more complicated path if cases were sent up and down and back and forth, as sometimes happens.

In a nutshell, though, the law may or may not have a chance to do anything.