Cody's Right To Travel

[Codee]

Originally Posted by CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION

ARTICLE 7 PUBLIC OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES


SEC. 2. (a) There is a Personnel Board of 5 members appointed by
the Governor and approved by the Senate, a majority of the membership
concurring, for 10-year terms and until their successors are
appointed and qualified. Appointment to fill a vacancy is for the
unexpired portion of the term. A member may be removed by concurrent
resolution adopted by each house, two-thirds of the membership of
each house concurring.
(b) The board annually shall elect one of its members as presiding
officer.
(c) The board shall appoint and prescribe compensation for an
executive officer who shall be a member of the civil service but not
a member of the board.

I still do not see any evidence of of authority for general jurisdiction law-making by resolution here.

Originally Posted by CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION

ARTICLE 16 PUBLIC FINANCE
And provided, still further, that notwithstanding the restrictions
contained in this Constitution, the treasurer of any city, county,
or city and county shall have power and the duty to make such
temporary transfers from the funds in custody as may be necessary to
provide funds for meeting the obligations incurred for maintenance
purposes by any city, county, city and county, district, or other
political subdivision whose funds are in custody and are paid out
solely through the treasurer's office. Such temporary transfer of
funds to any political subdivision shall be made only upon resolution
adopted by the governing body of the city, county, or city and
county directing the treasurer of such city, county, or city and
county to make such temporary transfer. Such temporary transfer of
funds to any political subdivision shall not exceed 85 percent of the
anticipated revenues accruing to such political subdivision, shall
not be made prior to the first day of the fiscal year nor after the
last Monday in April of the current fiscal year, and shall be
replaced from the revenues accruing to such political subdivision
before any other obligation of such political subdivision is met from
such revenue.

SEC. 14.5. The Legislature may provide for the issuance of revenue
bonds to finance the acquisition, construction, and installation of
facilities utilizing cogeneration technology, solar power, biomass,
or any other alternative source the Legislature may deem appropriate,
including the acquisition of all technological facilities necessary
or convenient for the use of alternative sources, and for the lease
or sale of such facilities to persons, associations, or corporations,
other than municipal corporations; provided, that such revenue bonds
shall not be secured by the taxing power of the State; and provided,
further, that the Legislature may, by resolution adopted by both
houses, prohibit or limit any proposed issuance of such revenue
bonds. No provision of this Constitution, including, but not limited
to, Sections 1, 2, and 6, of this article, shall be construed as a
limitation upon the authority granted to the Legislature pursuant to
this section. Nothing contained herein shall authorize any public
agency to operate any industrial or commercial enterprise.

Now what is a resolution adopted by both houses??? Is it concurent or is it joint. Is it both? What iare the differences?

Originally Posted by CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION

ARTICLE 20 MISCELLANEOUS SUBJECTS
...
A concurrent resolution for the removal of either the director or
any member of the board may be introduced in the Legislature only if
five Members of the Senate, or 10 Members of the Assembly, join as
authors.

[Codee]

Originally Posted by CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION

ARTICLE 13A [TAX LIMITATION]
...
(A) (i) Subject to the limitation of clause (ii), the base year
value of the qualified contaminated property, as adjusted as
authorized by subdivision (b), may be transferred to a replacement
property that is acquired or newly constructed as a replacement for
the qualified contaminated property, if the replacement real property
has a fair market value that is equal to or less than the fair
market value of the qualified contaminated property if that property
were not contaminated and, except as otherwise provided by this
clause, is located within the same county. The base year value of
the qualified contaminated property may be transferred to a
replacement real property located within another county if the board
of supervisors of that other county has, after consultation with the
affected local agencies within that county, adopted a resolution
authorizing an intercounty transfer of base year value as so
described.

........... Still looks like they are all internal. And I see no mention of joint resolutions anywhere!!!!

Here is some more internal "resolutions."

Originally Posted by CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION

ARTICLE 13 TAXATION

SEC. 29. (a) The Legislature may authorize counties, cities and
counties, and cities to enter into contracts to apportion between
them the revenue derived from any sales or use tax imposed by them
that is collected for them by the State. Before the contract becomes
operative, it shall be authorized by a majority of those voting on
the question in each jurisdiction at a general or direct primary
election.
(b) Notwithstanding subdivision (a), on and after the operative
date of this subdivision, counties, cities and counties, and cities
may enter into contracts to apportion between them the revenue
derived from any sales or use tax imposed by them pursuant to the
Bradley-Burns Uniform Local Sales and Use Tax Law, or any successor
provisions, that is collected for them by the State, if the ordinance
or resolution proposing each contract is approved by a two-thirds
vote of the governing body of each jurisdiction that is a party to
the contract.

See now resolutoin has the constitional equivilent of an ordinance. A municipal law. It is not a statute and thus it is just a recomendation on how to act. It might create civil liability (In the event of an injured party) but not criminal. It is not apparent to me that resolutions are mala prohibita. They do not appear to be prohibited only recomended against.

Well thats it. That is every entry of hte word "resolution" in the constitution for my state. I saw nothing in there making any resolution a law. Hmmmm...

Now lets take a look at BILLS.... YEA!!!!

[rentiap]

Here's some!

[ezrhythm]

HAHAHAHAHA Great spot to throw in a side bar! Love it!

[charlesa6]

O yea, Mother Nature. Great!

[Codee]

OK guys. That was funny. Now back on track. I only got a few minutes left in my lunch break.

Bills are what will become law. I guess nobody felt like looking up "Bills" last night. Here is the begining of the "Bills."

Originally Posted by CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION

ARTICLE 4 LEGISLATIVE

SEC. 8. (a) At regular sessions no bill other than the budget bill
may be heard or acted on by committee or either house until the 31st
day after the bill is introduced unless the house dispenses with this
requirement by rollcall vote entered in the journal, three fourths
of the membership concurring.
(b) The Legislature may make no law except by statute and may
enact no statute except by bill. No bill may be passed unless it is
read by title on 3 days in each house except that the house may
dispense with this requirement by rollcall vote entered in the
journal, two thirds of the membership concurring. No bill may be
passed until the bill with amendments has been printed and
distributed to the members. No bill may be passed unless, by
rollcall vote entered in the journal, a majority of the membership of
each house concurs.

WOW!!! So there is no law other then statutes. And the only way for there to be a statute is if it originated as a bill. The bill needed to be read aloud (unless role call voted.) So NOW I am going to want to research all my codes to find the statute which is codified in the code. When I find the statute I will then go to the legislative history and find out how the statute came into being. If it started out as a "Joint resolution" then I have a problem with that.

[rentiap]

Sorry Cody but there was more to my post than just a light hearted joke.
There was a double meaning to a bill being what's on the face of a duck (Quack)
I believe that all of those bills,which turn into a statute AKA. laws are just a bunch of quackery and still have no jurisdiction and do not pertain to me. I have not joined into their political fictional club.

[Codee]

In california most resolutions are resolutions and do not become "statutes." I am wondering however if the state amends laws in the same way the feds do... IE by resolution sometimes. If so then there is big problem.

Also one might want to take the California model and try to see if there is congruity between it and the feds.

My point was to make it abo****ly clear that law needs to start out as a bill.

The bills NEED to be read unless waived by the house 2/3 majority consenting. I would love to have a list of all the billls that were passed without reading the law into the record. See a statute must be passed by bill. Even the vehicle code statutes must be passed by bill. Now if the legislature makes a bill to repeal the vehicle code and then to renact the code,,, the new law needs to be read. This is how I view it. Any thoughts?

[Codee]

Originally Posted by Shoonra

I am sure that you are appreciative of all the work I did to answer your prior question about the distinctions among the various kinds of legislative proposals. You're welcome.

I had found all that stuff on the web already on one page. The research was what you said it was, straight from the government, but it is not real evidence. I wish there was something more definitive... even a court case to point me in the right direction for the federal issue. I have been searching and it is hard to find. Maybe you could help me out? I was thanking you for your ability to put the stuff into at least some context. It takes time for you to write and publish ideas you find that you support. You put the ideas in to the Shoonra persona and I can better craft my arguments from them knowing your logics and natural tendencies. Of course I do not know them all.

So thank you for your contributions. Your thoughts on ACTUAL EVIDECE is much appreciated.

I am glad to see in addition that you have stopped arguing against the classic arguments that I was not making,,, and are now appearing to genuinly address the topics I address in this thread. Thanks again.

Cody

[Codee]

Originally Posted by Shoonra

The California legislature used Mason's Manual as its guide, and Mason's perpetuates the Congressional forms of proposals. I haven't examined the Calif Constitution but I would bet it gives the legislature some authority to adopt its own rulebook.

YES SHOONRA!!! THAT IS IT!!!!!! YOU DO UNDERSTAND!!!!!

Resolutions are there own personal rulebook. They do not apply to me. Joint resolutions are private laws for D.C. state employees. This is the theory I am exploring,,, and you seem to come along and and treat it like its last weeks paper. WOW! Thanks for your unending support Shoonra and keep up the good research. The Mason's Manual. Where I might I find that?

MY THEORY IS THIS. In the federal game the house can pass joint resolution to affect employees of the government. Since this is quasi internal as it goes to "agencies" (which are administered by the executive branch) that the congress creates, and it requires executive police power of enforcement, then the resolution must be signed off by the president.
If it is generally internal (Just the two houses) then that enters only into the legislative jurisdiction and also enters into both houses. So both houses are needed to sign off on that CONCURENT RESOLUTION.
If it only affects one house it is specific and limited only to the house in which it originates so it must be signed off by only one house, the originating and final house.