主题：【原创】揭穿一个流传已久的谎话帖，关于美国持枪自由 -- zhang11
共:💬89 🌺104
我不知道是否有在不改变法律的情况下最高法院的法官改变以前的最高法院法官裁决的例子
最高法院的裁决不可上诉，所以以前的裁决被推翻是通过新的类似案例的裁决实现的。相信这是常识。最近一例请见
Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission
The decision completely overruled Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce (1990) and partially overruled McConnell v. Federal Election Commission (2003).[4]
Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce, 494 U.S. 652 (1990), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held the Michigan Campaign Finance act which prohibited corporations from using treasury money to support or oppose candidates in elections did not violate the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
McConnell v. Federal Election Commission, 540 U.S. 93 (2003)[1], is a case in which the United States Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of most of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, often referred to as the McCain–Feingold Act.
- 相关回复 上下关系8
压缩 2 层
🙂看到这个我前面不用写了 葫芦牛仁 字94 2010-03-15 00:47:19
🙂顺便提一句 1 frnkl 字137 2010-03-12 08:45:05
🙂我说“最终”的意思是最高法院的解释不能被上诉 1 牛腰 字190 2010-03-12 09:54:38
🙂例子
🙂看来我确实不该用“最终”这个词 牛腰 字0 2010-03-12 10:45:46
🙂我想你记错了：这不是第一次由最高法院对第二修正案做出解释 frnkl 字4827 2010-03-12 10:05:24
🙂谢谢，不过前几个好像不能算完全的解释 牛腰 字651 2010-03-12 10:37:37
🙂这次也不是完全的解释 frnkl 字290 2010-03-12 10:54:40