The Muniz Brief givens standing that the highest court in the Commonwealth came to a conclusion based on the PA Constitution Article 1 Section 17 independent of standing on Article 1 Section 10 of the U.S. Constitution when it handed down its decision that SORNA is punitive and violates the Pa. Constitution – and by advisory opinion of dictia the PASC spoke to say as a side note that the U.S. Constitution and the Pa. Constitution says the same thing.
When Freed herd this comment in the PASC he thought the PASC was making their decion on the MUNIZ case solely on the U.S. Constitution. He know that the PASC was using the PA. Constitution as the lead authority – Freed just wanted to pick a side issue as if the PASC used the U.S. Constitution as the independent authority to come to the conclusion that Muniz rights unsder it alone had be violated. But NOT so . . . . . . See Michigan v. Long, 463 U.S. page 1032 which says, “Once a State Supreme Court makes a decision based upon an adequate and independent grounds from its own State Constitution, that is deemed sufficient to support its judgment. Any added mentions of the U.S. Constitution on a federal question will have no effect on the outcome of the case and will only amount to their advisory opinion.”
The SCOTUS is in power to correct wrong judgments, not to revise advisory opinions. PASC comment on federal law during Muniz decision amounted to no more than the justices’ advisory opinion to agree with the U.S. Constitution on ex Post Facto conclusions of law…….