Cody's Right To Travel

[Codee]

Originally Posted by Shoonra

With respect, Notorial Dissent is describing - as I also was - the Congressional practice. You were, however, confining your question (and how I wish that you had made this clear from the beginning) to the California Legislature.

Well I disagree. I think ND thinks that the state was operating like the feds. An easy mistake. I am not trying to pick on you guys. I really like your posts as of recent. Thank you both. There is a reason you never made it to my ignore list.

Originally Posted by Notorious Dessent

You are getting hung up on semantics. A bill and a joint resolution are for all intents and purposes the same thing regardless of what they are called. If it went through all the processes to become a statute then it met the requirements. As to the actual law, you will need to check the California Reporter to see what it says about the law, and then the actual session law to see the law as it was proposed and passed. I would also check your state's annotated statutes as that will usually tell you a great deal about a particular law as well.

[Shoonra]

I have not looked this up, but I would assume that the State Constitution gives the Legislature the authority to provide for the incorporation and other official recognition of towns and cities, and somewhere there is some law in the State Code for the requirements or restrictions on municipal govts, including the topics they may or may not regulate by local legislation.

I suppose municipalities legislate by ordinance, and I would suppose that each municipality can develop its own preferred method -- by resolution, by motion, etc.

[Codee]

..........

[Codee]

Originally Posted by Shoonra

I have not looked this up, but I would assume that the State Constitution gives the Legislature the authority to provide for the incorporation and other official recognition of towns and cities, and somewhere there is some law in the State Code for the requirements or restrictions on municipal govts, including the topics they may or may not regulate by local legislation.

I suppose municipalities legislate by ordinance, and I would suppose that each municipality can develop its own preferred method -- by resolution, by motion, etc.

That is interesting Shoonra. See here in california we have Charter cities and statutory cities. Charter Cities are made from a Charter passed with 75% approval and these charter cities get a much more broad range of rule making allotted to them. Actually in every area not specifically occupied by the state.

In all the statutory cities I cannot see how the legislature could make cities under statute and then give them the power that the legislature could not have in itself. Seems fishy. I have a feeling that case that you posted was mis argues and I will await my next library visit with eager anticipation.

I am thinking the correct argument is that the legislature can pass no statute that was not a bill and can make ONLY statutes into LAW. That the legislature cannot in any way circumvent this authority including making towns of smaller jurisdiction all over the place and then instilling in such towns the power to do what the state could not.

Could it be that the legislature makes a "statute" declaring that they could pass law by resolution? I would think that would get shot down in flames as being unconstitutional. Now how does adding a creature of the legislature (a statutory town) as a subsidiary of the original party prevent the constitutional abuse?

Let me put it this way. You do know that the Charter cities are called just that and others are called coporate municipalities. Now can the Federal governement say "Oh no, the right to probable cause before arrest was a restriction on the federal governement. WE are just an agency so it does not apply. No government can circumvent its constitutional limitations simply by resorting to the corporate form. IE the municipal corporate form.

Originally Posted by Lebron v. National Railroad Passenger Corporation, 513 U.S. 374 (1995).

...
(e) Amtrak is an agency or instrumentality of the United States for the purpose of individual rights guaranteed against the Government by the Constitution. This conclusion accords with the public, judicial, and congressional understanding over the years that Government-created and -controlled corporations are part of the Government itself. See, e.g., Reconstruction Finance Corp. v. J. G. Menihan Corp., 312 U.S. 81, 83 ; Government Corporation Control Act, 304(a), 59 Stat., at 602. A contrary holding would allow government to evade its most solemn constitutional obligations by simply resorting to the corporate form, cf. Pennsylvania v. Board of Directors of City Trusts of Philadelphia, 353 U.S. 230, 231 . Bank of United States v. Planters' Bank of Georgia, 9 Wheat. 904, 907, 908, and Regional Rail Reorganization Act Cases, 419 U.S. 102, 152 , distinguished. Pp. 20-26.

My appologies in advance for using a court case to support my previous contentions. I thingk it might help you understand my point however and not dismiss it as crack potty.

[Codee]

Originally Posted by Notorial dissent

I’m afraid I don’t see what your problem is?

That is because I have none.

Originally Posted by Shoonra

Evidently the California Constitution means what it says.
In Mullan v. State (1896) 114 Cal 578, 46 Pac 670,

ANd now Shoonra has also got the point that Myself and Big Al have been introducing here. Cases are "evidence" of law. Shoonra... I fear you are a hop, jump and a skip away from understanding it all. I know you will persist against it though.

Originally Posted by Shoonra

I suppose municipalities legislate by ordinance, and I would suppose that each municipality can develop its own preferred method -- by resolution, by motion, etc.

This first part at least is my supposition too.

Thank you for everything.

Cody

[Codee]

Originally Posted by California Constitution

ARTICLE 11 LOCAL GOVERNMEN

SEC. 1. (a) The State is divided into counties which are legal
subdivisions of the State. The Legislature shall prescribe uniform
procedure for county formation, consolidation, and boundary change.
Formation or consolidation requires approval by a majority of
electors voting on the question in each affected county. A boundary
change requires approval by the governing body of each affected
county. No county seat shall be removed unless two-thirds of the
qualified electors of the county, voting on the proposition at a
general election, shall vote in favor of such removal. A proposition
of removal shall not be submitted in the same county more than once
in four years.
(b) The Legislature shall provide for [the] county powers, an elected county sheriff, an elected district attorney, an elected assessor,
and an elected governing body in each county. Except as provided in
subdivision (b) of Section 4 of this article, each governing body
shall prescribe by ordinance the compensation of its members, but the
ordinance prescribing such compensation shall be subject to
referendum.[WHICH IS A POWER RESERVED TO THE PEOPLE] The Legislature or the governing body may provide for
other officers whose compensation shall be prescribed by the
governing body. The governing body shall provide for the number,
compensation, tenure, and appointment of employees.

Originally Posted by CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION

ARTICLE 11 LOCAL GOVERNMENT

SEC. 2. (a) The Legislature shall prescribe uniform procedure for
city formation and provide for [THE] city powers.
(b) Except with approval by a majority of its electors voting on
the question, a city may not be annexed to or consolidated into
another.

Now here comes the goods...

Originally Posted by CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION

ARTICLE 11 LOCAL GOVERNMENT


SEC. 3. (a) For [color]its own [AS IN NOT FOR THE GOVERNING OF OTHER THINGS][/color] government, a county or city [Both things created by or a part of the state. The county is part of the state and the city is a corporation which has already been discussed as offering the state no new powers.] may adopt a
charter by majority vote of its electors voting on the question. The
charter is effective when filed with the Secretary of State. A
charter may be amended, revised, or repealed in the same manner. A
charter, amendment, revision, or repeal thereof shall be published in
the official state statutes. County charters adopted pursuant to
this section shall supersede any existing charter and all laws
inconsistent therewith. The provisions of a charter are the law of
the State and have the force and effect of legislative enactments.
(b) The governing body or charter commission of a county or city
may propose a charter or revision. Amendment or repeal may be
proposed by initiative or by the governing body.
(c) An election to determine whether to draft or revise a charter
and elect a charter commission may be required by initiative or by
the governing body.
(d) If provisions of 2 or more measures approved at the same
election conflict, those of the measure receiving the highest
affirmative vote shall prevail.

Now I saw a little something in there that used some big direct language.

“The provisions of a charter are the law of the State and have the force and effect of legislative enactments.”
Now what I want to find is something saying that these counties and cities can pass resolutions with the same force and effect.
I want to explain now what these quotes evidence. They evidence that there is no power to pass legislation via ordinance nor resolution. Since the legislature was never delegated the powers to create law by ordinance then that same legislature cannot re-delegate that power to a city. Why? Because the legislature never had the power to give away. Now look at the language again as it is used. The term ordinance is used here in the constitution but again it is only talking about internal operations of government. Now read the above and see if this all magically is fitting together.
Keep in mind also that the charters that have this force and effect of law were passed by the electors of the area. This is power still residual in the people and we do not need to look further. There expression is the will of the people. However the government is the only thing controlled by the charter...
" For its own government, a county or city may adopt a charter...”

Thank you again to Shoonra who has pointed out that this area of my logic needed more explaining.

[Codee]

So this was the section the GV city attorney actually used in his argument for a loitering law. You have to notice the language in this section after reading what I posted above. I was 19 when that case went down and now I am eager to get another muni-code violation. I think it is time to break out the skateboard... oooh they hate that. However they already won't even talk to my friend who has been trying his ass off to get one.

CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
ARTICLE 11 LOCAL GOVERNMENT


SEC. 5. (a) It shall be competent in any city charter to provide
that the city governed thereunder may make and enforce all ordinances
and regulations in respect to municipal affairs, subject only to
restrictions and limitations provided in their several charters and
in respect to other matters [LIKE REGULATING MY BEHAVIOR OR ACTIVITY ON A SKATEBOARD] they shall be subject to general laws.
City charters adopted pursuant to this Constitution shall supersede
any existing charter, and with respect to municipal affairs shall
supersede all laws inconsistent therewith.
(b) It shall be competent in all city charters to provide, in
addition to those provisions allowable by this Constitution, and by
the laws of the State for: (1) the constitution, regulation, and
government of the city police force (2) subgovernment in all or part
of a city (3) conduct of city elections and (4) plenary authority is
hereby granted, subject only to the restrictions of this article, to
provide therein or by amendment thereto, the manner in which, the
method by which, the times at which, and the terms for which the
several municipal officers and employees whose compensation is paid
by the city shall be elected or appointed, and for their removal, and
for their compensation, and for the number of deputies, clerks and
other employees that each shall have, and for the compensation,
method of appointment, qualifications, tenure of office and removal
of such deputies, clerks and other employees.

Originally Posted by CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION

ARTICLE 11 LOCAL GOVERNMENT

SEC. 7. A county or city may make and enforce within its limits all
local, police, sanitary, and other ordinances and regulations not in
conflict with general laws.

Right. And the general laws say that the legislature can only make laws via bills. Everything else the legislature makes (even if they do it through cities) is not law and can only be meant to conduct internal affairs. The regulatoins and ordinances are simply not laws. Thus when you violate them, just like judge Buttz explained to me, there is no punishment only a fine. The fine is not intended to punish me. It is an infraction. It is an internal opertaion and thus is administrative. If these things had the force of general law then they could not be inconflict with the general law BECAUSE THEY WOULD BE THE GENERAL LAW!!! So they may make and enforce any ordinance. An ordinance and resolution are never given the authority of law.

Originally Posted by CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION

ARTICLE 11 LOCAL GOVERNMENT


SEC. 7.5. (a) A city or county measure proposed by the legislative
body of a city, charter city, county, or charter county and submitted
to the voters for approval may not do either of the following:
...
(2) Contain alternative or cumulative provisions wherein one or
more of those provisions would become law depending upon the casting
of a specified percentage of votes for or against the measure.
(b) "City or county measure," as used in this section, means an
advisory question, proposed charter or charter amendment, ordinance,
proposition for the issuance of bonds, or other question or
proposition submitted to the voters of a city, or to the voters of a
county at an election held throughout an entire single county.

So above here we see that a "measure" might be able to have provisions attaining force of law. When we look at the definition of measure we see and find that it includes charter provisions which DO carry force of law. Again these charter provisions are for the GOVERNING of the city.

[Codee]

So it will be necessary to exlain this again.

Cities may putin to their charter a law stating that the city may make and enforce all ordinances "In respect to their municipal affairs, subject only to the provisions of the charter." But that is it. If they are to enforce another typre of regulation like one regulating my person affairs then it must be done subject to the General laws. This means that the ordinance must have originated with proper statutory language.

This all means that the city can only enforce state general laws on me and not some provision of their Muni-code.

It shall be competent in any city charter to provide
that the city governed thereunder may make and enforce all ordinances
and regulations in respect to municipal affairs, subject only to
restrictions and limitations provided in their several charters and
in respect to other matters they [The city]shall be subject to general laws.

So now that we see that the city council must be subject to general laws in other matters we ask?

Do the general laws allow for a law to be created by ordinance and resolution. Nope!

Do the general laws allow for a city to pass bills? Nope.

So can a city pass a law by way of statute by way of bill? Nope

So can the legislature make a law allowing for the city to make a law? Nope.

How can a law come to affect me then?

The LEGISLATURE passes a bill duly enacted and read for not more then three days. That is it.

I did not see anything inthere giving cities inherint police power to enforce their rules as laws upon me. I saw the power to enforce their rules as law on themselves.

Originally Posted by CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION

ARTICLE 11 LOCAL GOVERNMENT

SEC. 7. A county or city may make and enforce within its limits all
local, police, sanitary, and other ordinances and regulations not in
conflict with general laws.

What is a "Police Regulation?" What is a "Police Ordinance?" What does "in conflic" mean. In conflict means they have written on any subject that is already written on by the legislature or the constitution. So... A city may make and enforce an ordinance. What is an ordinance and what are its inherint limitations?

Originally Posted by http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/o045.htm

ORDINANCE - A law, a statute, a decree.

An ordinance is a law enacted by a municipal body, such as a city council or county commission (sometimes called county council or county board of supervisors). Ordinances govern matters not already covered by state or federal laws such as zoning, safety and building regulations.

This word is more usually applied to the laws of a corporation than to the acts of the legislature; as the ordinances of the city of Philadelphia.

Where the proceeding consisted only of a petition from parliament and an answer from the king, these were entered on the parliament roll; and if the matter was of a public nature, the whole was then styled an ordinance; if, however, the petition and answer were not only of a public but a novel nature, they were then formed into an act by the king with the aid of his council and judges and entered on the statute roll."

According to Lord Coke, the difference between a statute and an ordinance is, that the latter has not had the assent of the king, lords, and commons, but is made merely by two of those powers.

Lex Law pretty much cut and pasted from Bouvier's. l

[Big Al]

Remember the great myth about police power is all made up from the courts over the past one hundred and fifty plus years. The courts created the myth because it can not be found in any constitution federal or state.

[idknow]

Originally Posted by Codee

If anyne has wests law could they please do some research for me??? PLEASE!?!?!?

I need the history of article 4 sec 1 of the California constitution. As much as one can get in terms of when and how it has been amended and the legislative process that occured for each amendment, like assembly records.

Also I would like the same done on the re-enactment of the California Vehicle Code. It was Repealed and Renacted... the statute taht did it is this one...

I need to know if it was "read" or not when it was passed and if it was not if there was a propper vote to waive the reading.


Thanks guys in advance BIG time for anyone who can help.

Email me at Codee@mail.com

Cody,

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/calaw.html
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/guide.html
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/rules.html

I could NOT find state statutes; they are hidden.