True/False

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally posted by Dan_ref

Thanks for the reference Mark. Next time I work a game in 1963 I'll certainly keep this in mind. Now that it's
d@mn near 2003 what you suggest falls under the heading of
irritant. Bottom line: don't stop the clock to let someone
tie his shoe. Otherwise, as the road construction sign sez,
give 'em a break.

None of us will ever officiate a game in 1963, but the Rules Committee made a rule change in 1963 and until the Rules Committee changes the rule, the orginal rule change is still in effect. If you do not like the rule, petition the Rules Committee, to make a change. Remember a Supreme Court ruling made in 1863 is still in effect until a law is passed that renders the ruling moot. In the case of the 1963 rule change the Rules Committees have never rendered a rule change that changes its decision in 1963.

[Dan_ref]

Originally posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

Remember a Supreme Court ruling made in 1863 is still in effect until a law is passed that renders the ruling moot. In the case of the 1963 rule change the Rules Committees have never rendered a rule change that changes its decision in 1963.

This is too silly to comment on.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Dan,

You may think my response is silly but the fact is the Rules Committee spoke in 1963 and has never changed the rule. If you don't like the rule, write to the Rules Committees, and suggest a change.

I think that the rule change made in 1963 was a good rule change.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by Dan_ref
[/B]

[/B][/QUOTE]Bottom line: don't stop the clock to let someone
tie his shoe. Otherwise, as the road construction sign sez,
give 'em a break. [/B][/QUOTE]Exactly!That's the way everyone in the world calls it,except for one guy in Bowling Green,Ohio.

Btw,I did games in '63.I don't remember shoe-tying really being a major issue.

[Edited by Jurassic Referee on Nov 8th, 2002 at 01:39 AM]

[bob jenkins]

Originally posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.
None of us will ever officiate a game in 1963,

According to the schedules that came out back in 2006, you and I are scheduled to work a game in 1963.

I'll pick you up in 1945 and we can ride in separate machines together.

Bob

(A seminar on time travel will be held last Thursday).

[ChuckElias]

That was very clever, Bob. I liked it!

[ChuckElias]

Originally posted by Dan_ref

This is too silly to comment on. [/B]

It's also, I think, not strictly true. A Supreme Court ruling is not over-ridden by a legislative measure, is it? The only way to take a Supreme Court ruling out of effect is for the Supreme Court to re-consider its previous ruling or to go through the process of amending the U.S. Constitution. I suppose another alternative would be to hold a constitutional convention, but I honestly don't know what the effect of that would be.

Chuck

[hawkk]

Originally posted by ChuckElias

It's also, I think, not strictly true. A Supreme Court ruling is not over-ridden by a legislative measure, is it? The only way to take a Supreme Court ruling out of effect is for the Supreme Court to re-consider its previous ruling or to go through the process of amending the U.S. Constitution. I suppose another alternative would be to hold a constitutional convention, but I honestly don't know what the effect of that would be.

Chuck [/B]

Not exactly. A Supreme Court ruling INTERPRETING THE CONSTITUTION cannot be overridden by legislation (though Congress has on very rare occaisons found a way to do an endrun that effectively does so -- alas I cannot think of an example right now). The Supreme Court regularly interprets statutes (and occaisonally agency rules), and Congress (or the agency) is free to revise those statutes (or rules) to "change," the Supreme Court decision. . . . Also, on rare occaisons, lower courts have essentially said that a Supreme Court decision was "stale" and no longer good law even though it was never actually reversed by the Supreme Court. But this is very rare and requires very old opinions that have been ignored by the Supreme Court since they were issued.

[ChuckElias]

Originally posted by hawkk
The Supreme Court regularly interprets statutes (and occaisonally agency rules), and Congress (or the agency) is free to revise those statutes (or rules) to "change," the Supreme Court decision. . . . Also, on rare occaisons, lower courts have essentially said that a Supreme Court decision was "stale" and no longer good law even though it was never actually reversed by the Supreme Court. But this is very rare and requires very old opinions that have been ignored by the Supreme Court since they were issued.

This last point is very interesting, hawk. Thanks for pointing it out. Can you think of an example? I'm no constitutional scholar, by any stretch. I'm working from my memories of 8th grade American Gov't class

As for the first point about "changing" a Supreme Court decision, I don't think that's a fair description. Congress may revise parts of a law that have been found to be unconstitutional. But that is changing the law, not the high court's decision. They are simply making the law constitutional; they are not enforcing the law despite it's unconstitutional status. Right?

Chuck

[hawkk]

Originally posted by ChuckElias

This last point is very interesting, hawk. Thanks for pointing it out. Can you think of an example? I'm no constitutional scholar, by any stretch. I'm working from my memories of 8th grade American Gov't class

As for the first point about "changing" a Supreme Court decision, I don't think that's a fair description. Congress may revise parts of a law that have been found to be unconstitutional. But that is changing the law, not the high court's decision. They are simply making the law constitutional; they are not enforcing the law despite it's unconstitutional status. Right?

Chuck

I can't think of an example -- I remember running into a situation several years ago where a lower court essentially dismissed a Supreme Court opinion as stale where the opinion had never been relied on again for the point and didn't make a lot of sense. (I can think of a potential future example: the Supreme Court said it was OK to intern the Japanese during the war; although that case has never been reversed, it has been so thoroughly condemned that I would imagine many lower courts would feel free to ignore it.) On the other point, you are right -- they are not changing or overruling the decision, per se, but they are modifying the law to get the result that they want. (Of course, if you read the newspaper, you will read that they Congress overruled the decision.) Where it usually happens is where a Court interprets a statute to mean something, and the legislature amends the statute. (In California, the legislature will try to get closer to overruling its Supreme Court, and pass laws that say the statute means such and such, and always meant such and such.)

[AK ref SE]

Law and Editorial Comments-

There are still laws on the books in many states and towns that have never been taken off the books....that are still there, but because of the changing times they are never called into question. Some were back in the horse and buggy day( I was not around) and I did not call Basketball back in 1963- Did not even know how to tie my shoes back them.

So Editorial Comments from previous years if they wanted them enforced as they were 40 years ago...they would be in the rules...or the rule book should have an appendix with every years Editorial Comments.

AK ref SE

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally posted by ChuckElias

This last point is very interesting, hawk. Thanks for pointing it out. Can you think of an example? I'm no constitutional scholar, by any stretch. I'm working from my memories of 8th grade American Gov't class

As for the first point about "changing" a Supreme Court decision, I don't think that's a fair description. Congress may revise parts of a law that have been found to be unconstitutional. But that is changing the law, not the high court's decision. They are simply making the law constitutional; they are not enforcing the law despite it's unconstitutional status. Right?

Chuck

Chuck,

Your comments explain the point I was trying to make in a much clearer manner that I did. Thank you.

MTD, Sr.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally posted by AK ref SE
Law and Editorial Comments-

There are still laws on the books in many states and towns that have never been taken off the books....that are still there, but because of the changing times they are never called into question. Some were back in the horse and buggy day( I was not around) and I did not call Basketball back in 1963- Did not even know how to tie my shoes back them.

So Editorial Comments from previous years if they wanted them enforced as they were 40 years ago...they would be in the rules...or the rule book should have an appendix with every years Editorial Comments.

AK ref SE

You are missing the point. Prior to the 1963-64 season, the rules stated specificially that the game officials could stop the game or withhold the ball from being made live so that a player could tie his/her shoes. Starting with the 1963-64 season that provision was deliberately deleted from the rules by the Rules Committee because the Rules Committee did not want the officials to stop the game or withhold the ball from being made live. The Rules Committee's Editorial Comment gave the reason for deleting the provision from the rules. The provision was not deleted just to make the Rules Book shorter but to change the rules.

Your argument that the deletion was made forty years ago is not defensible. Currently, it is a violation to goaltend a free throw. If the violation is by B1 at an Team A's basket, the penalty is to award a point to Team A, charge B1 with a technical foul, and award Team A two free throws plus the possession of the ball for a throw-in after the free throws at the division line opposite the scorer's table. Using your logic, if the Rules Committee decided to delete the technical foul penalty provision from the rules, and used an Editorial Comment to bring the deletion of the provision to everybody's attention, but then never never made a comment in subsequent Rules Books, forty years from now, an offical could charge a player with a technical foul for goaltending a free throw because the Rules Committee hasn't commented on it in the past forty years.

[donj]

I had the original post on shoe laces and I would today, in the year 2002, allow a player to tie his shoes while the ball is dead, repeat while the ball is dead. It could become a safety issue if not tied and what's the harm, the ball's dead at the time?

[APHP]

Why can't he tie them before the game starts--or maybe there never were tied/tied properly......that's his probem!