CVC Unconstitutional?

[charlesa6]

Yea, you right about that, she is a prime asset here.

[Codee]

Originally Posted by fulltitle

[color="Navy"][i][b]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.


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?

Sure. Like an oath?

Might it at all be contracted into somehow? I am not out to argue with you.

You should be

Look the courts are not looking at it from contract law so much as obligation. If you work for the state the state has a right to manage its own affairs. You can go looking for all the relations you want... but it is moot in California. There is code showing that the CVC is for state employees. I might be wrong but I just found a court case talking about that section that I feel is the biggest find yet IF THE COURT was correct in its decision. I will post it soon.

[Notorial dissent]

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.

The compacts between the states, at least with regards to vehicles and driving, have to do with recognizing the driver’s licensing and vehicle registration of the other states, and a reciprocal reporting of violations within that state of another state’s drivers.

Originally Posted by mrg

That statement is absurd beyond belief.
sure it is

Prove it.
It is obvious and self evident and stands by itself.

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

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)?
No pretending about it.

I suppose the executive likewise "is not obliged to choose the most efficient or rational way of doing its execution?"
Inefficient and irrational only to you, an NO.

Where do you get this stuff?
You might try reading up on government procedures.

Actually, in this case the repeal and re-enact strategy is a very straightforward and reasonable way of amending a large body of law, as a vehicle code must of necessity be. It does away with multiple cites to the various statutes that had to be cited in order to be comprehensive, it all being done at the same time, it can then be cited as one specific code rather than many parts.

[Codee]

Originally Posted by Notorial dissent

Actually, in this case the repeal and re-enact strategy is a very straightforward and reasonable way of amending a large body of law, as a vehicle code must of necessity be. It does away with multiple cites to the various statutes that had to be cited in order to be comprehensive, it all being done at the same time, it can then be cited as one specific code rather than many parts.

Even on that line of thinking the ENTIRE LAW TO BE PASSED must be read on the floor. I have not had the chance to pick up the minutes from the assembly... I am ussuming it was not read in its enirety.

Other then that I could give a rats ass if it is EFFICIENT or REASONABLE. If it is not done by process of law then it is a FRAUD when they come after my money.

[Shoonra]

Nowadays they do not "read" the entire bill on the floor - a relic of a time when the legislatures did not have copiers and such. The printed copies are distributed, perhaps the day before, and when the clerk rises to read the bill aloud there is always a motion "to dispense with the reading".

In the US Congress they occasionally (about once every three years) re-enact an entire title of the US Code in order to make it positive law; that involves passing an enormous bill that reprints every section of the title. They don't actually read all that aloud on the floor of the Congress.

[Codee]

Originally Posted by Shoonra

Nowadays they do not "read" the entire bill on the floor - a relic of a time when the legislatures did not have copiers and such. The printed copies are distributed, perhaps the day before, and when the clerk rises to read the bill aloud there is always a motion "to dispense with the reading".

In California all the law not read is VOID! The feds are different. It says no such thing in their constitutional grant of power. In California it is fatal to the law.

BTW how the hell do you make sure everyone got an identical copy if you do not read it on the floor?

Please answer me that.

[Shoonra]

A "reading" of the bill is SOP for every legislative body -- some require 3 readings - at introduction, at the report of the committee that studied it, and just before the final voting - but nowadays with copiers and high speed printing and such, it is sufficient - even better - that every member has a printed copy, and the oral reading is skipped (in some bodies, the clerk must read at least the title of the bill, and then the rest is skipped).

In any legislature, the actual start-to-finish reading of some of this legislation, such as appropriations and other big bills, would prevent virtually any business.

[FreeFromContract]

Originally Posted by Shoonra

A "reading" of the bill is SOP for every legislative body -- some require 3 readings - at introduction, at the report of the committee that studied it, and just before the final voting - but nowadays with copiers and high speed printing and such, it is sufficient - even better - that every member has a printed copy, and the oral reading is skipped (in some bodies, the clerk must read at least the title of the bill, and then the rest is skipped).

In any legislature, the actual start-to-finish reading of some of this legislation, such as appropriations and other big bills, would prevent virtually any business.

What a bunch of double-talk bullcrap. In the first paragraph you state it's SOP and then in the second you say actual start-to-finish reading would prevent virtually any business. So does it happen or doesn't it?

Some of us are grounded in reality and know more often than not that end-to-end reading does not happen.

On almost every bill last minute changes (often pork) is slipped in before the final printing and these are frequently not reviewed by members of congress. As a matter of fact, frequently, members of congress have their aids read an early version of a bill and receive summary reports concerning the content! So quit propagating your bullcrap on how things are working according to your so called SOP.

http://www.bu.edu/washjocenter/Fall-...riotSununu.htm
http://gregorlove.com/gregorlog/660/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...-2004Dec7.html
http://blog.ryeterrell.net/serendipi...ml&serendipity[csuccess]=true

In the ass-backward thinking you present, you apparently justify the action of not reading the especially large bills. I say ass-backwards because it is just this sort of irresponsibility that allows bills with grossly inappropriate clauses become law like those that can be found in the Patriot Act.

http://action.aclu.org/reformthepatriotact/safe.html

It's so bad, that a D.C. PAC even tried to have a bill introduced that would force congress to read each and every bill: http://www.downsizedc.org/read_the_laws.shtml

and in response, democratic party leaders are giving their usual lip service:
http://www.ombwatch.org/article/articleview/3657/1/469

[FreeFromContract]

Originally Posted by Codee

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.

I agree Codee. But when I see posts such as that which I replied to above, it is clear her agenda is to give carte blanche support to the government. I have little tolerance for the blind support of the government and the government's agents which she exhibits.

[Codee]

Originally Posted by FreeFromContract

I agree Codee. But when I see posts such as that which I replied to above, it is clear her agenda is to give carte blanche support to the government. I have little tolerance for the blind support of the government and the government's agents which she exhibits.

So? Does that need to anger you?

ANyway nice to here from you again freefrom.