CVC Unconstitutional?

[Codee]

The California Vehicle Code when first enacted clearly dealt with the regulation of comercial vehicles.

It was then repealed an re-enacted so as to appear to apply to private persons.

Granted that I do not think that the vehicle code today is applicable... let us assume the language does in fact make it so.

The current vehicle code would then be spanning TWO subjects that were distinct and different.

This would be in violatoin of

California Constitution, Article 4 s24
Acts: Single subject, title; amendment
Sec. 24; Every act shall embrace but one subject, which subject
shall be expressed in its title. But if any subject shall be
embraced in an act which shall not be expressed in its title such
act shall be void only as to so much thereof shall not be expressed
in its title.

Not to mention that a whole code when re-enacted embraces all sorts of subjects... so a code should probably not ever be enacted under one statute.

Statutes at Large, 1959, Chapter 3, page 1523
Approved by Governor, February 25, 1959
Filed with Secretary of State February 25, 1959
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS,
An act to repeal and re-enact Vehicle Code of 1959 and to add
Chapter 6.5 to Title 14, Part 4, Division 3 of Civil Code relating
to vehicles.

Hmmm. Re-enacting AND adding to AND repealing. Seems unconstitutional to me.

Further look at the above quote. Do you see the intent of the statute there expressing an intent to regulate vehicles... I sure as **** do not.

"The object of this section that statute shall embrace but one
subject expressed in its title are to prevent legislative
abuse and passage of acts bearing deceitful and misleading titles
to protect members of Legislature, as well as public, against
fraud"
People vs Superior Court In and For San Bernardino County (1937) 10
Cal2d 288

[Shoonra]

I would think that the "one topic" the enactment of the vehicle code is embracing is the vehicle code itself, or perhaps the single topic of what is allowed on the roads.

I don't think your argument to the contrary will succeed.

[Codee]

Originally Posted by Shoonra

I would think that the "one topic" the enactment of the vehicle code is embracing is the vehicle code itself, or perhaps the single topic of what is allowed on the roads.

I don't think your argument to the contrary will succeed.

Well I think the topics were "repealing the act" "re-enacting the act" and "adding to the act"

So I guess that is where we stand.

[Notorial dissent]

Why do you feel that it is unconstitutional?

[Codee]

Originally Posted by Notorial dissent

Why do you feel that it is unconstitutional?

Read from the begining.

I cannot state it more clearly.

[Notorial dissent]

California Constitution, Article 4 s24
Acts: Single subject, title; amendment
Sec. 24; Every act shall embrace but one subject, which subject
shall be expressed in its title. But if any subject shall be
embraced in an act which shall not be expressed in its title such
act shall be void only as to so much thereof shall not be expressed
in its title.

Subject is generally construed and taken to mean a specific idea or related group of ideas. In that it is called the CVC California Vehicle Code it is expressed in one title. And since everything included within the title pertains to vehicles, or administration of the statute, I do not see that it violates 4-s24, and complies with the requirement. Apparently the California courts have not had any problem with it under those terms for what almost 50 years? I would agree with you if it had to do with say vehicles and chiropractors, that would be more than one subject, but as it stands it only deals with vehicles, and that is one subject.

Originally Posted by Codee

It was then repealed an re-enacted so as to appear to apply to private persons.

There is no appear about it, it very specifically mentions individuals, private or otherwise.

Originally Posted by Codee

Re-enacting AND adding to AND repealing. Seems unconstitutional to me.

As far as I can see there is nothing in the CA constitution preventing the legislature from repealing or amending an act or portion thereof, anymore than there is anything to prevent them from repealing an entire section of code, since that is the way the CA laws are laid out, then re-enacting it, and adding to it at the same time. That is after all one of the functions reserved to the state legislature, and as long as they have followed their internal rules, and the constitutional requirements then it should be legal, and if it isn’t then a challenge in court should resolve the matter.

[theghost]

I agree with Codee on this one. In Illinois it's called the single subject clause, and in 2006 the Illinois Supreme Court struck down the long standing Illinois Income Tax Act because it covered more than one topic. The act itself described who was required under the act, but it also enveloped the willful failure to file statute, which clearly violated the Illinois constitution, and it was struck down. The states attorney was quoted as saying "the whole act needs to be scrapped, and re-written", but to my knowledge, it has not been. It's supposed to avoid piggybacking (pork barrel projects) but it's done all the time. Just another example of the laziness/sleaziness of the legislatures.

[fulltitle]

Originally Posted by theghost

I agree with Codee on this one. In Illinois it's called the single subject clause, and in 2006 the Illinois Supreme Court struck down the long standing Illinois Income Tax Act because it covered more than one topic. The act itself described who was required under the act, but it also enveloped the willful failure to file statute, which clearly violated the Illinois constitution, and it was struck down. The states attorney was quoted as saying "the whole act needs to be scrapped, and re-written", but to my knowledge, it has not been. It's supposed to avoid piggybacking (pork barrel projects) but it's done all the time. Just another example of the laziness/sleaziness of the legislatures.

Without Prejudice.
All that still might be a dog and pony show--'constitutionality'. Focus on that and you might miss the significance of an extant contract.

[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?

[theghost]

Originally Posted by fulltitle

Without Prejudice.
All that still might be a dog and pony show--'constitutionality'. Focus on that and you might miss the significance of an extant contract.

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