Results 1 to 10 of 13

Thread: The Doctrine of Constitutional Estoppel

Threaded View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1

    The Doctrine of Constitutional Estoppel

    Hello all, I pray everyone is well!

    I have not been active on StSC recently, but that does not mean I have stopped learning! Oh contrar

    So anyway, I was reading a thread titled Legal name = mark of the beast a while back and saw that shikamaru shared the Ashwander Rules in response to a question about Social Security

    Quote Originally Posted by shikamaru View Post
    I think I can explain this.

    If you look at the case Ashwander v. Tennessee Valley Authority, you will note that there is a standard for raising a Constitutional issue.

    If you avail yourself of a statute or act, you will be unable to raise a Constitutional issue. The issue becomes merely administrative.

    This is why it is important to correct your status and remove one's self from statutory benefits.

    Ashwander rule

    1. The Court will not pass upon the constitutionality of legislation in a friendly, non-adversary, proceeding, declining because to decide such questions "is legitimate only in the last resort, earnest and vital controversy between individuals. It never was the thought that, by means of a friendly suit, a party beaten in the legislature could transfer to the courts an inquiry as to the constitutionality of the legislative act."[1]

    2. The Court will not "anticipate a question of constitutional law in advance of the necessity of deciding it." [2] "It is not the habit of the Court to decide questions of a constitutional nature unless absolutely necessary to a decision of the case." [3]

    3. The Court will not "formulate a rule of constitutional law broader than is required by the Precise facts to which it is to be applied." [2]

    4. The Court will not pass upon a constitutional question although properly presented by the record, if there is also present some other ground upon which the case may be disposed of. This rule has found most varied application. Thus, if a case can be decided on either of two grounds, one involving a constitutional question, the other a question of statutory construction or general law, the Court will decide only the latter. Appeals from the highest court of a state challenging its decision of a question under the Federal Constitution are frequently dismissed because the judgment can be sustained on an independent state ground.

    5. The Court will not pass upon the validity of a statute upon complaint of one who fails to show that he is injured by its operation. Among the many applications of this rule, none is more striking than the denial of the right to challenge to one who lacks a personal or property right.

    6. The Court will not pass upon the constitutionality of a statute at the instance of one who has availed himself of its benefits.

    7. "When the validity of an act of the Congress is drawn in question, and even if a serious doubt of constitutionality is raised, it is a cardinal principle that this Court will first ascertain whether a construction of the statute is fairly possible by which the question may be avoided." [4]
    Many of the other one's are important too.
    I started looking into this and found a great law review on the Ashwander Rules The Doctrine of Constitutional Avoidance that explains most of them very well. However, Rule 6 was more or less overlooked. This was a disappointment because Rule 6 could give some much needed insight as to why our constitutional rights are being ignored by the courts.

    I found a law article on specifically Rule 6: Constitutional Estoppel which brings up some very interesting mechanics in Constitutional Law
    Last edited by Soulution; 02-07-19 at 02:14 AM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •