TMCTLT wrote:[quote=teedubbya]I don't get #5 unless it's sarcasm. If it's their job to merely interpret not legislate (which it should be) there would be zero reason for them to have it before it is law, unless you want them to legislate. [/quote
Why?? What good has it done to have them read it After Becoming Law? Would it not make more sense to have read Every word FIRST then determine it's Constitutionality? Did it make sense to you that they passed a Massive Tax on the entire American public.....Without Reading it FIRST?
Absolutely not. Though, I get your play on Nancy Pelosi.
Separation of powers. To have a Federal judge issue an opinion or even a ruling prior to a law being passed would amount to an influence on the drafting of such a law. Clearly a violation of the spirit of the separation of powers concept. But, I suspect you already know that.