CVC Unconstitutional?

[Notorial dissent]

Originally Posted by theghost

... in 2006 the Illinois Supreme Court struck down the long standing Illinois Income Tax Act .....

Close, but not quite. The case was ILLINOIS, Appellant, v. VALDY OLENDER Appellee, and the challenge was against an act that amended the IIRC, among other things, Public Act 88-669, which indeed covered more than one subject, had been vetoed by the governor and passed over his veto. The amendment to the code, not the code was found to be unconstitutional. It should have been tossed, as it was a mish mosh of items, which is exactly what the IL constitution prohibits.

However, if you pass a statute which is concerned with only one thing, vehicles, they it is not more than one subject, it may have many different things to do with vehicles, but it is still only about vehicles and so only one subject.

[Shoonra]

The modern authority on statutory interpretation is Sutherland on Statutory Construction, 6th edition, published by West.

In vol. 1A (2002), sec. 17:2 deals with "Permissible breadth of subject matter". In short, it makes clear that courts tend to uphold legislative acts. "It has generally been held that an act does not violate the one subject rule as long as its provisions relate directly or indirectly to the same general subject and have mutual connection."

Since the particular situation that starts this thread is the California adoption of a completely revised vehicular code, Sutherland has this:

Thus, an act adopting a compilation of state statutes has been held not to violate the single subject matter requirement, as the subject is the entire body of the state's statute law.* In another state, a new code covering a subject as broad as the entire field of agriculture and industry, which the state's constitution placed under the administration of a single department, was held to have a unity of subject matter.**
-------
* Litchfield Elementary School Dist. v. Babbitt (1980) 125 Az 215, 608 P2d 792; Central of Georgia Rwy Co. v. State (1898) 104 Ga 831, 31 SE 531; Wass v. Anderson (1977) 312 Minn 394, 252 NW2d 131.
** Gibson v. State (1925) 214 Alab. 38, 106 So 231; In re Advisory Op. to Atty-Gen (Fla 1991) 581 So.2d 586.

[Codee]

Originally Posted by Shoonra

Since the particular situation that starts this thread is the California adoption of a completely revised vehicular code, Sutherland has this:

Not the best citations... but thank you anyway... I will look into them.

[Codee]

Originally Posted by weishaupt1776

Codee, I have stuff along the same lines as you have posted for Florida

would you like me to post that research here or start another thread?

new thread might be better because this one is names Cal. specific...

Lets start another thread called "One subject..." Or whatever.

I will promulgate it,,,, if you build it.

[Soldier of Truth]

If you read Assembly Bill Digest it shows that there was no substantive changes. The Bill that repealed and reenacted the Vehicle Code Was Assembly Bill 5.

The Digest CLEARLY says"
"Repeals and enacts Vehicle Code.
" Recodifies Vehicle Code without changing substance."

There you have it. And if this is not enough the amendment in 1961 which is now 12500(a) makes it even more clear with the combining of the terms "operator" and "chauffeur" so as to allow for one "drivers license."

This amendment was introduced in 1961 by Assembly Bill 2229 which says:
"Provides for issuance of "driver's" license rather than of "operator's" or "chauffeur's" license.
"Provides for classifications of "driver's" license to take the place of various classes of chauffeur and endorsed operator's licenses as presently provided."

Bada-bing-bada-boom.

[Shoonra]

Thank goodness for somebody who actually does the hard and real research.

[Codee]

Originally Posted by Soldier of Truth

If you read Assembly Bill Digest it shows that there was no substantive changes. The Bill that repealed and reenacted the Vehicle Code Was Assembly Bill 5.

The Digest CLEARLY says"
"Repeals and enacts Vehicle Code.
" Recodifies Vehicle Code without changing substance."

There you have it. And if this is not enough the amendment in 1961 which is now 12500(a) makes it even more clear with the combining of the terms "operator" and "chauffeur" so as to allow for one "drivers license."

I HAVE THE FOLLOWING AS THE APPEARANCE OF DRIVER'S LICENSE... NOT 1961

Stats. 1957, ch. 482, 1 originally created the driver's license and reads (in part).

Section 1. Section 69.1 is added to the Vehicle Code, to read:
69.1 "Driver's License." "Driver's license" includes both an operator's and a chauffeur's license.

Originally Posted by Soldier of Truth

This amendment was introduced in 1961 by Assembly Bill 2229 which says:
"Provides for issuance of "driver's" license rather than of "operator's" or "chauffeur's" license.
"Provides for classifications of "driver's" license to take the place of various classes of chauffeur and endorsed operator's licenses as presently provided."

Bada-bing-bada-boom.

Very nice. Now as far as I can remember there was no requirement for a private person to get either prior to the amendment.

Also the Drivers license took the "place of" the cheufer and operator's license.

Second is not "Replealing" an act, and is not "Enacting" an act.

Why repeal and renact the same laws? why not just amend the parts that needed amending?

[KITCHIE]

If you go into your state's statutes you should be able to find the Memorandum of Agreement between the state and the fed. In it you will find that the agreement is about regulating commerce. If you are not transporting people or freight for hire... then the vehicle code does not apply to you!

Kitchie

[Shoonra]

Originally Posted by Codee

Why repeal and renact the same laws? why not just amend the parts that needed amending?

A legislature is not obliged to choose the most efficient or rational way of doing its legislating. However, I would guess that the Vehicle Code, having been patched together from decades of separate statutes, may have been less than clear or at least a target of quibbling, about the relationship between sections that could be traced back to separate statutes. For the sake of codification, it was far more streamlined to completely replace the old cobbled Code with one enormous legislative act that undeniably represented the words chosen by the Legislature. When Congress does this, it is enacting a Code title as positive law.

[FreeFromContract]

Originally Posted by KITCHIE

If you go into your state's statutes you should be able to find the Memorandum of Agreement between the state and the fed. In it you will find that the agreement is about regulating commerce. If you are not transporting people or freight for hire... then the vehicle code does not apply to you!

Kitchie

Only problem is that through the decades and countless acts and laws the connection is difficult to maintain from the first vehicle and/or licensing laws to present day.

However, if you can locate your state's first vehicle law (most are around 1910-1920), the fact that the legislature was acting (for the public safety/good) to regulate commerce is obvious.