http://www.arktimes.com/ArkansasBlog/archives/2013/02/07/fight-begins-on-tort-reform Comments On: Fight begins on 'tort reform' by Max Brantley en-us Copyright 2013 Arkansas Times. All rights reserved. This RSS file is offered to individuals, Arkansas Times readers, and non-commercial organizations only. Any commercial websites wishing to use this RSS file, please contact Arkansas Times. robert@arktimes.com (Arkansas Times Webmaster) Sun, 19 May 2013 00:00:01 -0500 Sun, 19 May 2013 12:30:00 -0500 Foundation http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss Posted by Infamous Amos]]> Fri, 08 Feb 2013 10:41:13 -0600 Arkansas Times
Here, because the amendment would be voted on by people and would expressly amend the constitution, the last clause of Art. 4 sec. 2 would be satisfied.

I get your point about preemption, but it's not applicable here. The federal separation of powers applies specifically and only to the federal government. There's clearly not express preemption here, as the language of the federal constitution doesn't explicitly apply the separation of powers to the states' governments. So you'd have to rely on implied preemption, and show that it was either impossible to comply with both the federal law and the state law or that the constitution intended to occupy the entire field with respect to separation-of-powers laws. The latter is a non-starter; we've got centuries of proof that there was no such intent. As for the conflicting laws part, I don't think you can get there, either, as a change in the state's separation of powers wouldn't have any impact on the federal government, and there's no impediment to the federal government maintaining its separation of powers in this scenario.

The best argument, although it's a longshot, would be to challenge the law as violating procedural due process if it completely stripped the ability to appeal certain judgments.

***
Here's what REALLY bugs me about this, though: Amendment 80, which laid out all the rules for the Supreme Court deciding which cases were heard in which courts, etc., was only passed in 2000. Now, 13 years later, the Republicans have taken the legislature and they want to completely change that? That doesn't sound "conservative" to me; that sounds like a bunch of corporate-sponsored assholes shitting on the constitution and the people of Arkansas in order to protect their corporate masters.
Posted by Infamous Amos]]> Fri, 08 Feb 2013 10:40:28 -0600 Arkansas Times Posted by Sound Policy]]> Thu, 07 Feb 2013 23:15:52 -0600 Arkansas Times Posted by plainjim]]> Thu, 07 Feb 2013 19:58:14 -0600 Arkansas Times Posted by plainjim]]> Thu, 07 Feb 2013 19:41:07 -0600 Arkansas Times
One is regulation and enforcement to make sure the powerless are not abused and maimed.

The other is to sue for damages.

There must be one avenue to halt abuse of the powerless.

Do both or do one but DO NOT DO NEITHER!
Posted by Citizen1]]> Thu, 07 Feb 2013 17:59:07 -0600 Arkansas Times Posted by RYD]]> Thu, 07 Feb 2013 17:18:04 -0600 Arkansas Times Posted by Blockhead]]> Thu, 07 Feb 2013 16:51:54 -0600 Arkansas Times Posted by eLwood]]> Thu, 07 Feb 2013 16:27:12 -0600 Arkansas Times Posted by midnight blue]]> Thu, 07 Feb 2013 16:00:27 -0600 Arkansas Times
Now my Razorbabies know why I only married mega-preachers and attorneys.

Nobody's fool, is your Norma.
Posted by Norma Bates]]> Thu, 07 Feb 2013 15:59:42 -0600 Arkansas Times
"Everyday low prices. Live Better"

"Better living with Georgia-Pacific products"
Posted by eLwood]]> Thu, 07 Feb 2013 15:58:08 -0600 Arkansas Times
Those who will be hurt by SJR 6: People.

Those who will be helped by SJR 6: Insurance companies, big corporations, and lobbyists. Anyone who wants to buy their way out of trouble.
Posted by Double J]]> Thu, 07 Feb 2013 15:55:17 -0600 Arkansas Times Posted by ArkansasGirl]]> Thu, 07 Feb 2013 15:51:28 -0600 Arkansas Times
In this day and age, many are fond of beating their chest in support of certain amendments to the United States Constitution. Let's not forget the 7th, which guarantees a trial by jury for civil wrongs. This resolution is a direct assault on the freedom guaranteed by that amendment.
Posted by Double J]]> Thu, 07 Feb 2013 15:49:37 -0600 Arkansas Times Posted by YossarianMinderbinder]]> Thu, 07 Feb 2013 15:42:23 -0600 Arkansas Times