Rulings on Bono v. Atlasia 2.0

[Sam Spade]

I.  Section 6 of the Promotion of Democracy Act

We find the plaintiff's initial argument that Article I Section 5 Clause 20 does not provide sufficient basis for the constitutionality of this section to be compelling.  The clause is clearly intended to allow for state to state relationships and the law in question bypasses the governments of Lebanon and Iran in ways that their governments might feel were not to their benefit. 

However the promotion of policies by other countries can be considered as a method for enhancing the common defense of our republic and hence constitutional under Article I Section 5 Clause 21.  The desirability or effectiveness of those policies is a political question beyond the scope of this court.

I agree with the court deferring any judgement on this Act.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This essentially means the federal government can't do this because of the necessity of uniformity in the tax code, but the Regional government can.  (my interpretation)  I'm actually ok with this as well.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I also agree with this ruling.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Also looks good to me.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Since I am not a knowledgable person with regards to the US code, could you point out a link to the provisions discussed here?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I also agree with this.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This makes logical sense from the former precedent of Bono v. Atlasia.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I agree with these last two, as far as my understanding of US code goes, which as I said before is not as strong as it should be.

[Sam Spade]

My head is still frankly spinning from looking at the code, though I get the general gist of what has been ruled unconstitutional.