ThirdOfFive |
10-22-2023 11:14 AM |
Quote:
Originally Posted by justjim
(Post 2267435)
What you say may be true, however, that could all change by a Supreme Court Ruling.
|
I'm not sure how that would work. First, the function of the Supreme Court is to rule on constitutional issues. As far as I know it cannot void a law already on the books by any other means than declaring it unconstitutional. First the case would have to be brought before the Court. Second they'd have to decide to hear it (they hear about 150 cases per year out of over 7,000 brought before it). Third, they'd have to declare the law (laws, in this case: the Great Lakes compact between the American states bordering the Great Lakes, as well as the international compact between the U.S. and Canada, both of which prohibit large amounts of water being withdrawn from the lakes) unconstitutional, and I am at a loss to understand exactly on what basis they'd do that.
Fourth, the U.S. Supreme Court has no authority over Canada or individual Canadian provinces, so if Canada opposed it (and I'd bet the farm that they would) we'd be acting in contravention of an international agreement between us and them, which could very well cause a VERY tense atmosphere. There've been armed conflicts between the U.S. and Canada before, and despite our ordinarily pretty good (though not always) relationship with our neighbor to the north, there is no guarantee that such conflict could not happen again.
I know there are lawyer types who post here. Comments from any of them about how, or even if, the SCOTUS could be involved in this?
|