-ooOOOoo-
"If Congress can use the Commerce Clause to force people to purchase insurance based on the mere fact that they exist or face federal penalties, then there is no limit to the power of Congress. Our case is about the constitutional limits of our federal government. Everyone agrees the health care system needs reform. But that doesn't mean Congress is allowed to violate the Constitution in the process."
- Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel for TMLC
Lawsuit to feds: Constitution says, 'No you can't' - 'Case is about power of government, which is to be limited'
Article 1. http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=131329
Article 2. http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=137189
Article 3. http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=161333
http://www.thomasmore
.org/default-sb_thomasmore.html?373934014
-ooOOOoo-
"The people are such as are born upon the soil, by whom and for whom in the first place the Government was ordained...."
Walther v. Rabolt, 30 Cal. 185, 189 (1866)
CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE
SECTION 11120 et seq.
11120. It is the public policy of this state that public agencies exist to aid in the conduct of the people's business and the proceedings of public agencies be conducted openly so that the public may remain informed.
In enacting this article the Legislature finds and declares that it is the intent of the law that actions of state agencies be taken openly and that their deliberation be conducted openly.
The people of this state do not yield their sovereignty to the agencies which serve them. The people, in delegating authority, do not give their public servants the right to decide what is good for the people to know and what is not good for them to know. The people insist on remaining informed so that they may retain control over the instruments they have created.
This article shall be known and may be cited as the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act.
§54950 DECLARATION OF LEGISLATIVE PURPOSE. "In enacting this chapter, the Legislature finds and declares that the public commissions, boards and councils and the other public agencies in this State exist to aid in the conduct of the people's business. It is the intent of the law that their actions be taken openly and that their deliberations be conducted openly.
The people of this State do not yield their sovereignty to the agencies which serve them. The people, in delegating authority, do not give their public servants the right to decide what is good for the people to know and what is not good for them to know. The people insist on remaining informed so that they may retain control over the instruments they have created".
Summary of California Law, vol 7, Constitutional Law, p. 9
B. Constitution of California
2. ['51] Restrictive and Enabling Provisions
(a) Restrictions on State Powers. The California Constitution, like other state constitutions, is generally a restriction upon the powers of the state.
...unlike the federal Constitution, "[t]he Constitution of this State is not to be considered as a grant of power, but rather as a restriction upon the powers of the Legislature; and that it is competent for the Legislature to exercise all powers not forbidden by the Constitution of the State, or delegated to the [federal] government, or prohibited by the Constitution of the United States." (People v. Coleman (1854) 4 Cal. 46, 49; see, e.g., Sheehan v. Scott (1905) 145 Cal. 684, 686-687 [79 P. 350]; Collins v. Riley (1944) 24 Cal.2d 912, 915-916 [152 P.2d 169]; Dean v. Kuchel (1951) 37 Cal.2d 97, 100 [230 P.2d 811].)
We have long held that affirmative grants of constitutional power are exclusive, negating any powers not specifically granted. (Gilgert v. Stockton Port District (1936) 7 Cal.2d 384, 387-389 [60 P.2d 847]; Martello v. Superior Court (1927) 202 Cal. 400, 404-406 [261 P. 476]; see also Morse v. Municipal Court (1974) 13 Cal.3d 149, 150 [118 Cal.Rptr. 14, 529 P.2d 46].) Where, as here, statutory implementation is permissive rather than mandatory the Legislature may decline to exercise the full scope of its constitutionally conferred authority. (Ruiz v. Industrial Acc. Com. (1955) 45 Cal.2d 409 [289 P.2d 229].) What it may not do, however, is act beyond the limits of that authority.
City and County of San Francisco v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd., 22 Cal.3d 103
[S.F. No. 23338. Supreme Court of California. September 13, 1978.]
...the fact that our Constitution is not a grant of power but rather a limitation or restriction upon the powers of the Legislature (In re Madera Irr. Dist., 92 Cal. 296 [28 P. 272, 675, 29 Am.St.Rep. 106, 14 L.R.A. 755]; Macmillan Co. v. Clarke, 184 Cal. 491 [194 P. 1030, 17 A.L.R. 288]; People ex rel. Smith v. Judge of the Twelfth District, 17 Cal. 547; Sheehan v. Scott, 145 Cal. 684 [79 P. 350]; Fitts v. Superior Court, 6 Cal.2d 230 [57 P.2d 510]; Mitchell v. Winnek, 117 Cal. 520 [49 P. 579]) and "that we do not look to the Constitution to determine whether the Legislature is authorized to do an act, but only to see if it is prohibited." (Fitts v. Superior Court, supra.)
Collins v. Riley, 24 Cal.2d 912
[S. F. No. 17019. In Bank. Oct. 2, 1944.]
...the state Constitution, as distinguished from the federal Constitution, does not constitute a grant of power, or an enabling act, to the legislature, but rather constitutes a limitation upon the powers of that body....we do not look to the Constitution to determine whether the legislature is authorized to do an act, but only to see if it is prohibited. In other words, unless restrained by constitutional provision, the legislature is vested with the whole of the legislative power of the state. (Macmillan Co. v. Clarke, 184 Cal. 491 [194 P. 1030, 17 A.L.R. 288]; Mitchell v. Winnek, 117 Cal. 520, 525 [49 P. 579]; Jensen v. McCullough, 94 Cal.App. 382, 394 [271 P. 568]; People v. Rinner, 52 Cal.App. 747, 749 [199 P. 1066].)
Fitts v. Superior Court, 6 Cal.2d 230
[L. A. No. 15256. In Bank. April 30, 1936.]
An administrative agency's obligation to adhere to the Constitution is not limited to mere promulgation of rules, but extends to the agency's application of legislation to the facts presented. (E.g., 3 Davis, Administrative Law Treatise (1958) § 20.04, p. 74; Jaffe, Judicial Control of Administrative Action (1965) pp. 438-439.) Obviously, administrative agencies, like police officers (People v. Cahan (1955) 44 Cal.2d 434, 437 [282 P.2d 905, 50 A.L.R.2d 513] [former Pen. Code, § 653h "could" not authorize violations of the Constitution]), must obey the Constitution and may not deprive persons of constitutional rights.
Southern Pac. Transportation Co. v. Public Utilities Com., 18 Cal.3d 308
[S.F. No. 23217. Supreme Court of California. November 23, 1976.]
The Supreme Court has ruled that no sanction or penalty shall be imposed upon one because of his exercise of constitutional rights.
Spevack v. Klein, 385 U.S. 511, 87 S.Ct. 625 (1967);
Garrity v. New Jersey, 385 U.S. 493, 87 S.Ct. 616 (1967);
Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616, 6 S.Ct. 524 (1886);
Malloy v. Hogan, 378 U.S. 1, 84 S.Ct. 1489 (1964);
Sherar v. Cullen, 481 F.2d 945 (1973)
Categories: Civil Liberties, Law, US Constitution, State Legislation
Tags:
No comments yet.
You must be logged in to post comments. [Become a member]
|
Local Coordinator
RSS feed
