CVC Unconstitutional?

[Codee]

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

There is NOTHING, NOTHING NOTHING in any state agreement with the feds declaring that the agreemant is the source of traffic jurisdiction in the state nor is there any language expressing the agreement to be excluding all other laws.

What bull****. Kitchie I challenge you to present ONE agreement from any state that shows what you claim it to mean.

[robhalford88]

Originally Posted by Shoonra

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.

Why don't you explain to us the rules of statutory construction then, seeing as how we are dumb and you are a qualified lawyer/librarian?

[fulltitle]

Originally Posted by theghost

Fulltitle, please elaborate on what you mean by "extant contract".

Without Prejudice.
Consider the notion of a a contract between a 'driver' or 'owner of a motor vehicle' and State of California with the contract being the CVC and the constitutionality being moot in face of commercial law.

There is NOTHING, NOTHING NOTHING in any state agreement with the feds declaring that the agreemant is the source of traffic jurisdiction in the state nor is there any language expressing the agreement to be excluding all other laws.

What bull****. Kitchie I challenge you to present ONE agreement from any state that shows what you claim it to mean.

There are, however, various compacts/agreements/contracts between U.S. States concerning motor vehicles. There is also a United Nations treaty/contract.

[Codee]

Originally Posted by fulltitle

Without Prejudice.
Consider the notion of a a contract between a 'driver' or 'owner of a motor vehicle' and State of California with the contract being the CVC and the constitutionality being moot in face of commercial law.

Now concider the actual law. The license is not a franchise but is a license. The CVC is not a contract but a body administrative law privately applicable to state employees and corporations (STAUTE SAYS SO, and is currently written to reflect very similar sentiments today.)The license is not for a "Driver" but for an "Opperator" or "Cheufer."

The constitutionality of the CVC being moot in face of commercial law makes zero sense because if a law is unconstitutional in construction it is not constitutional at all. I think you see it being ruled constitutional as written and think that is wrong where it is not. The law is unconstitutional as applied and therefor are not going off the books anytime soon.

The people of the state has the right to pass rules and regualations for themselves. Members of this group are state servants and employees.

[Codee]

Originally Posted by fulltitle

There are, however, various compacts/agreements/contracts between U.S. States concerning motor vehicles. There is also a United Nations treaty/contract.

So what? ...

[mrg]

Originally Posted by Shoonra
A legislature is not obliged to choose the most efficient or rational way of doing its legislating.

That statement is absurd beyond belief.

Prove it.

Inefficiency and irrationality as method and practice of legislating is acceptable to you?

I suppose though, it would stand to reason that such would be preferable to you and your fellow crown guildsman plying your trade, along the sides of the court.

Does that also hold true for the so called "judiciary" (attorneys pretending to "hold court)?

I suppose the executive likewise "is not obliged to choose the most efficient or rational way of doing its execution?"

Where do you get this stuff?

[Codee]

Originally Posted by mrg

That statement is absurd beyond belief.

Prove it.

I can. The only problem is you are going to say it is not proof.

Inefficiency and irrationality as method and practice of legislating is acceptable to you?

I suppose though, it would stand to reason that such would be preferable to you and your fellow crown guildsman plying your trade, along the sides of the court.

Does that also hold true for the so called "judiciary" (attorneys pretending to "hold court)?

Yes. The judiciary is also not obliged to hold court in "the most effecient manner." That is why there are still jury trials.

I suppose the executive likewise "is not obliged to choose the most efficient or rational way of doing its execution?"

Nope. The most effecient is to let people just club a convict to death. They do not do that. It is not christen to be "efficient." It is not lawful.

Where do you get this stuff?

Oh law books, the constitution, statutes

Again, maybe we can learn more from LISTENING to Shoonra instead of painting her as incredible.

ANyway the proof being the California Constitution requiring that law be passed by statute and statute passed by bill and all bills be read on the floor. Not very efficient but the way it is done.

[fulltitle]

[quote=Codee]The constitutionality of the CVC being moot in face of commercial law makes zero sense because

{"Consider the notion of} is what was typed. But I did not say that it was moot in the face of commercial law. {Thought experiment. Thinking things through.} However in a STATE OF CALIFORNIA courtroom setting, excessive focus on the the constitutionality issue might bring with it some troubles?

if a law is unconstitutional in construction it is not constitutional at all. I think you see it being ruled constitutional as written and think that is wrong where it is not. The law is unconstitutional as applied and therefor are not going off the books anytime soon.

The point is if STATE OF CALIFORNIA JUDGES are looking at it from a contractual perspective, the constitutionality issue might be a distraction to the point of self-inflicted injury. You are incorrect concerning my perspective, although I can guage that you are making your best attempt to interpret. Plain and simple, its more like an exhortation to not get too far into the 'constitutionality argument' or any kind of arguing (you appear to like the argumentative adversarial style..but to each their own some say?)..and especially not too the point its injurious and/or causes on to fail to see the 'commercial treatment' and/or its significance.

And while there is merit perhaps in considering the constitutionality especially to a view to bringing about some better situation--thats great. I rather not see people misdirected.

The people of the state has the right to pass rules and regualations for themselves. Members of this group are state servants and employees.

Might some kind of waiver of rights of some sort be involved when someone signs or swears in to be a California Highway Patrol officer or employee? Contract? Pledge?

. The CVC is not a contract but a body administrative law privately applicable to state employees and corporations (STAUTE SAYS SO, and is currently written to reflect very similar sentiments today.)

Might it at all be contracted into somehow? I am not out to argue with you. I agree that there might be merit to considering the constitutionality of the CVC in certain settings. My primary concern would be more for people who might be misled by focusing on arguing constitutionality of the CVC. [And I'm not hereby saying the CVC to be right, wrong, purple, little, yellow or different.]

While the CVC might not be a contract, it might very well spell out in detail certain terms and conditions of an extant contract. Am I saying there to be something wrong with having order among some sort of administrative body? Not at all. CVC is the CVC. Am I alluding to the significance of commercial law or contract law when it comes to revenue agents enforcing the CVC? Just maybe?

[Shoonra]

Originally Posted by robhalford88

Why don't you explain to us the rules of statutory construction then, seeing as how we are dumb and you are a qualified lawyer/librarian?

Ordinarily rudeness fails to get my cooperation, but enough people need to know something on this topic. There are perhaps half-a-dozen textbooks currently in print, and dozens of important ones no longer in print.

A brief (non-comprehensive) summation is in a recent CRS paper that can be downloaded for free:

http://digital.library.unt.edu/govdo...ff 5f17517097

[Codee]

Originally Posted by Shoonra

Ordinarily rudeness fails to get my cooperation, but enough people need to know something on this topic.

I agree. I think Shoonra is an excellent resource at times and although one can get frutrated with her, one should appologize and use patience and be kind.

Shoonra has provided me with excellent articles and help.

Thank you again Shoonra