Seperation of powers?

[Notorial dissent]

Sorry, my typo.

Please provide cite then. Thx

[mrg]

Originally Posted by Codee

There is case law detailing that the seperation of powers clause exists to protect the individual and not the corporations.

Where is and what is the "separation of powers clause?"

I find the executive in the legislative Powers and the judicial Power, and the legislative in the judicial Power.

Where is the separation of Powers in that?

Where does the phrase "all men are equal before the law" come from?

Just curious, I could not find an author.

[Codee]

Originally Posted by mrg

Where is and what is the "separation of powers clause?"

It is a clause in the state constitution.

I find the executive in the legislative Powers and the judicial Power, and the legislative in the judicial Power.

Try to find the answer. Read the cases that deal with it.

Where is the separation of Powers in that? That is ubuse or aministrative.

Where does the phrase "all men are equal before the law" come from? Don't Know. True,,, however not all persons are equal.

Just curious, I could not find an author.

..........

[Codee]

Originally Posted by Notorial dissent

Sorry, my typo.

Please provide cite then. Thx

Please verify it acuracy. I have not had a chance to recently... Hope it right.

"This clause and principle of separation of powers are intended
only as protection for individual persons, and private groups,
those who are peculiarly vulnerable to non-judicial determinations
of guilt." State vs Katzenback, SC 1966, 66 S Ct 803; 383 US 301

[mrg]

Originally Posted by Codee

..........

I thought you meant United States Constitution.

[mrg]

Found here:

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/proj...w/scvkatz.html

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE WARREN delivered the opinion of the Court.

These provisions of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 are challenged on the fundamental ground that they exceed the powers of Congress and encroach on an area reserved to the States by the Constitution.

South Carolina and certain of the amici curiae also attack specific sections of the Act for more particular reasons.

They argue that the coverage formula prescribed in 4 (a)-(d) violates the principle of the equality of States, denies due process by employing an invalid presumption and by barring judicial review of administrative findings, constitutes a forbidden bill of attainder, and impairs the separation of powers by adjudicating guilt through legislation.

They claim that the review of new voting rules required in 5 infringes Article III by directing the District Court to issue advisory opinions....

Some of these contentions may be dismissed at the outset.

The word "person" in the context of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment cannot, by any reasonable mode of interpretation, be expanded to encompass the States of the Union, and to our knowledge this has never been done by any court....

Likewise, courts have consistently regarded the Bill of Attainder Clause of Article I and the principle of the separation of powers only as protections for individual persons and private groups, those who are peculiarly vulnerable to nonjudicial determinations of guilt.

The objections to the Act which are raised under these provisions may therefore be considered only as additional aspects of the basic question presented by the case: Has Congress exercised its powers under the Fifteenth Amendment in an appropriate manner with relation to the States?

(emphasis added)

[David Merrill]

Separation of Powers was completely abrogated by Abraham LINCOLN forming Congress under the "extraordinary occasions" clause on July 4, 1861.



Regards,

David Merrill.

[Shoonra]

Originally Posted by greatwolf75

Okay, maybe this has been discussed already and I missed it but here's a question. With the seperation of powers thing, how is it a cop can give an attorney a ticket for something like speeding? I read somewhere before that they couldn't but a couple people told me that they know a cop who did just that. Any input is welcome.

This is a new one on me. I never heard of this. Evidently I've been slowing down all these years for nothing!

Seriously, this is completely false. There's nothing that makes lawyers immune to traffic laws; in anything, cops love to give lawyers a hard time.

However, some people are immune to traffic tickets. Diplomats - and their immediate staff - have diplomatic immunity and this creates a real problem in DC. But if a diplomat gets attention with too many violations - or maybe with one ugly accident - the State Dept whispers something in his home govt's ear and the guy gets called home. (The diplomatic immunity applies to foreign and accredited diplomats here, not our own State Dept people when they're back in the States and not those make-believe ambassadors like the Republic of Texas crowd or those from countries that lack diplomatic recognition from the US govt; in fact, it's a federal crime to pretend to be a foreign diplomat.)


Also Congressmen and Senators - in DC while Congress is in session. There isn't a specific law for this but it seems an extension of the "speech and debate clause" and maybe also some fear about Congress's control of DC's revenue. About 30 years ago one (Republican) Congressmen quite literally ran over a DC cop who was writing him a ticket.

[greatwolf75]

HA! Shoonra, I knew you were an attorney. Anyway the story about this is: the attorney was speeding, the cop pulled him over. After talking with the attorney (the usual, DL, insurance, etc.) the cop began to write the ticket. The guy said I'm sorry I just had a bad day in court, you see sir, I'm an attorney at law. The cop said sorry about your day, here's your ticket. That's all I know on the whole subject. So shoonra, let me ask ya this, what law dictionary, in your opinion, is best to use?

[Shoonra]

Originally Posted by greatwolf75

So shoonra, let me ask ya this, what law dictionary, in your opinion, is best to use?

Finally a question I can almost answer.
A good deal depends on your own needs and level of legal sophistication. Certainly the most popular (among lawyers) is Blacks, published by West, now in its 8th edition (2004). Since the 4th edition it has not only had a flock of new words and definitions added, but an enormous number of obsolete (British, Latin, Norman French) expressions dropped. There is also a paperback abridgement which is more affordable. But Blacks is for people who have some training in the law because so many of its definitions are couched in legalese.

Law students sometimes opt for the paperback dictionary published by Barnes & Noble (I forget the author), which is a little more lively and doesn't assume quite as much about the reader's legal knowledge.

I like my old Ballentine's, last published (by Lawyers Co-op) in 1969. And the two volume edition of Bouvier's, from 1914. With luck you can find these sometimes in used book stores.

There are, of course, others.

BUT, and this is Very Important, there is a definite limit to what a law dictionary is or can do. Some people treat a law dictionary as if it came down from Mount Sinai, as if it were the law itself. No. Law dictionaries generally provide just the specialized definitions of words as they might be construed in certain legal situations - not all the definitions nor even those that most commonly apply to words. No law dictionary is omniscient or infallible. A law dictionary is not a substitute - not even a poor substitute - for solid legal research. And the material that makes up the law dictionary is always dated; it comes from court decisions of years ago, sometimes British court decisions of centuries ago, but it can't always keep pace with the newest usages.

Until about 30 years ago it was very uncommon for a court decision to cite a law dictionary as an authority. Then, apparently, West had the smarts to send out free copies of its new edition to a lot of appellate judges and they started referring to it.