Forum ate my goddamn 3 paragraph post. DAMN IT

Don't youknow how many stupid laws have been passed because people thought they wouldn't. This is America land of the stupid Home of the crazy.

I could be completely wrong about the American judicial system, but for something to become law, don't you need:

1) The Supreme Court to say it's constitutional,

2) Congress to debate, discuss, vote on and approve it,

3) The President to sign it into law?

Can the Supreme Court, a group of unelected glorified lawyers, really change a law without consulting anyone who is democratically elected? That's a little broken.

The Supreme Court can declare unconstitutionality at any time. Then congress votes, then there are 3 ways it can become a law.

1) Signed

2) Veto (then passed)

3) Pocket Veto

The first case is relatively simple.

In the second, on reading up, this just means he gets to send it back to Congress with objections? So, if they decide to vote for it again, he can't do anything?

Pocket Veto confuses me a little. Does it work the same as a veto, only without it actually being a veto? What is the advantage of doing this, rather than just vetoing a bill?

Another question. If Arnie wins this case (which he probably won't), can he sign it into California law, or does it have to be approved by the federal government, when it will then be enacted in every state?

A veto is denied by the president. It goes back to Congress. If the House and the Senate pass it with 2/3 majority, it's a law, and the president can't do anything about it.

Pocket veto is entirely different. If the president doesn't sign it after ten days (excluding the Sabbath) it becomes a law.... I think. I'm unsure of what it's called.

I have no clue to the last part. I don't know if this should even be a Federal law or a State law.

The gist I'm getting from the Pocket veto Wikipedia article is that if Congress is adjourned before ten days (excluding Sunday) pass (after which time the bill would become a law), the bill is effectively vetoed and will not become law. Since it is vetoed while Congress is unable to override the veto, the bill will never become law.

And apparently, this was already a California law from 2005-2007, when the Court of Appeals ruled it unconstitutional. So would Schwarzenegger winning this case mean:

1) California could re-implement the law, OR

2) Any state could implement the law, OR

3) All states would be forced to implement the law?

I assume that in the second or third case, it would have to go through Congress and Obama. But it might just be the first, because Arnie is trying to appeal an appeal, effectively.

So, if this is just for Calfornia, is it that big a deal?

Keep it up guys this is great stuff. Im suprised my thread is still here. Again if it goes through, lets hope they wont be too strict on whats violent for kids.

After the precedant is set in California any state can enact a similar law. Its a big deal also because California is the biggest economy in the US, so trends set there in video games will flow to the rest of the US, and trends set in the US will flow to rest of the world.

A link on pocket vet: http://www.c-span.org/guide/congress/glossary/pktveto.htm

but you seem to understand it correctly

Ah, I see. Some of the more conservative states might realise that they can pull something like this, and do it.

And because it's not Federal law, it doesn't need to go through the Congress and President.