Happy Independence Day

Re-read the Constitution, motard. Hell, re-read Scalia's majority opinion in Brown v. EMA.

Brown v. EMA wasn't just about selling games to minors. It was also about a state trying to treat one form of free speech differently than others, on the basis that the speech in question is "dangerous", "new", and "more interactive than the others".

Article III gives the Supreme Court(and the courts below them) judicial review of all laws passed by the US Congress(and affirmed through Marbury v. Madison), and through the Fourteenth Amendment, all laws passed by the states, thus making it the business of the "unelected judges" to overturn a law if it's found to be unconstitutional.

The First Amendment states, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Edit: The Ninth Amendment states, "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." Meaning that just because a right is not explicitly guaranteed in the Constitution doesn't mean that the right in question doesn't exist.

Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment states, "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." (Note: for Constitutional purposes, corporations like Microsoft, Sony, Nintendo, etc. are considered to be people, as a corporation is a collective of persons.)

To summarize: California passed a law abridging the freedom of speech; the video game industry petitioned the Government for a redress of grievances as the Judicial branch is part of the government; Federal district judge overturned the law as unconstitutional; California appealed to Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals; Ninth Circuit affirmed lower court ruling; California appealed to U.S. Supreme Court; SCOTUS affirmed Ninth Circuit ruling.

The representatives in the California State Legislature being elected by the majority of people in their districts is irrevalent. The Constitution protects the minority from the tyranny of the majority.

Bottom line: California's law was never "perfectly Constitutional", and California lost. Deal with it.

Geaux Saints, Geaux Tigers, Geaux Hornets, Jack Thompson can geaux chase a chupacabra. Hell will stay frozen over for quite a while since the Saints won the Super Bowl.

I asked you before, I'll ask you again: "How is a law that singles out a particular medium for a content-based restriction aimed at a select group of individuals "perfectly Constitutional"?"

Also:

"It is none of the business of unelected judges to overturn such a law. The right way to get it overturned would be to elect canidates who would overturn it through the legislative process."

Just out of curiosity, is this how you think it should work or how it does work?

Andrew Eisen