|
The "purpose" of a bill is usually the first section and is well-stated (to the degree anything is in Congress), so such a rule would work pretty well (to the degree anything does in Congress). Making water bottles at raves pariphenalia would certainly not pass this test in the Amber Alert bill instance, for example.
Thorfinn, it is obviously true that the government is more powerful now than it was then. My statement was that the court is less powerful relative to the other branches. The executive is HUGELY powerful.
Oh, Congress has, and *can,* pass bills calling for the level of fines and costs you mentioned. Try telling a client who never filed EPCRA papers on one tank in its factory that it faces upwards of a $425 million fine if you just look to the statute. It was actually the regs that make this one something I'll likely negotiate down to under $10K. All the enviro bills have your basic $25K per day (actually, I think recently became $27.5 K per day) fine for an ongoing violation. Adds up quick.
And, the courts often interpret away their power. You are not uninformed on this, it would seem, so I take it you're being snippy. Jurisdiction (whether the court can hear the case) is the FIRST question, and is often challenged. And is often won on. And, it's a judge question, not a jury question. There are a LOT of reasonable rules about jurisdiction, and the courts are pretty honest on this one all-in-all. Oh, let's not forget that our anti-federalist Chief Justice of the Supreme Court just *loves* to gnaw on this issue. Altogether an unfair comment you made there.
__________________
 
|