Re: Constitutional Challenge to (C) Code

On Fri, 3 Apr 1998, Vance R. Koven <vrkoven[_at_]world.std.com> wrote:
>
> On 4/2/98, Terry Carroll <carroll[_at_]tjc.com> wrote:
> >
> > The idea is that you don't want the courts to issue advisory opinions
> > on the law. You only want them issuing opinions when there is a real
> > case with real parties advocating their real positions. That's the
> > essence of what the judicial power is. An advisory opinion is
> > essentially legislation.
>
> I think that's a bit harsh. An advisory opinion, properly used,
> avoids the need for litigation by private parties over the facial
> constitutionality of a statute. That's essentially how it goes in
> Massachusetts, where advisory opinions are expressly permitted by the
> state constitution.
 

What I wrote above was to answeer the question asking for the basis for the federal constitutional limitation. That does not apply to the courts of individual states. A number of states permit courts to offer advisory opinions.

I have no direct experience with advisory opinions, because the two states in which I have resided and with which I am familiar (California and Ohio), do not. I still consider an advisory opinion to be a bad idea, and not a judicial function, but that's just me.

--
Terry Carroll       |  "I know the Great Lakes.  I've traveled the 
Santa Clara, CA     |  Great Lakes.  And Lake Champlain is not one of
carroll[_at_]tjc.com     |  the Great Lakes." - U.S. Senator John Glenn reacts
Modell delendus est |  to 33 U.S.C. 1122 as amended by Pub.L. 105-160