This is with regard to the constitutionality of "trigger laws" such as those that went into effect, automatically, after the overturn of Roe vs. Wade.
I am neither a lawyer nor a politician, but it is my understanding that in the United States, state laws are produced by elected state congresses in the ideal of having such laws represent the people. Such laws must be consistent with other legislation and enforceable. The ill-defined "trigger law" is purely theoretical, in that it is known to be unenforceable, but could become enforceable if key changes occur such as a reversal of a ruling by the Supreme Court.
To me, this sounds a little absurd, as it effectively means that an untestable hopper-bill can be submitted, voted on, and even passed with the full recogition that it is outside of the ability of the state to enforce. It is passed for an unknown point in the future during which many congressmen may no longer serve; and cannot, with certainty, represent the will of the people. It is treated purely as a theoretical element. It is, given such an event as the overturn, in effect, immediately and without state review, due to the actions of someone neither elected democratically nor even likely a resident of said state.
This just feels wrong. Unfortunately I'm uncertain whether this qualifies as a matter for the federal constitution or state constitutions. SCOTUS was never meant to be a legislative body. But is it constitutional?