I'm arguing neither.
I'm stating that politics will take precedence over the Constitution at nearly
every level of the court system.
I'm stating that it will take very deep pockets to fight if it doesn't end up in
front of an honest and responsible judge on the first go round. Appeals are not
cheap and it's very unlikely that the ACLU is going to help on this one.
I'm stating that California is ripe for this law, and filled with judges (State
and Federal) who place politics ahead of the Constitution.
As a resident of The People's Republic of Illinois, I have an unwelcome
familiarity with a socialist system similar to that in Kalifornia.
The only hope for hobbyists in the land of Naderism is to hound their
legislators endlessly and rally the troops to write letters, make phone calls
and get noticed in a very big way.
Jeffery Howard wrote:
> Andrew,
> The only place it should be challenged if in federal court. It is a
> constitutional question and the U. S. District court has jurisdiction over
> that issue. You don't argue how the law violates the car owners, you argue
> the question of when and how the law is "ex post facto".
>
> The the District court does not give you the answer you want, go to appeal,
> then the supreme court. I guess it depends on how moch your car is worth to
> you.
>
> Jeff
>
> P.S. I've never been to law school and the bumble bee has never been to
> flight school. If you listen to conventional wisdom the bumble bee's wings
> are too small for it to fly. If you want it bad enough........it could
> happen.
/// triumphs@autox.team.net mailing list
/// or try http://www.team.net/cgi-bin/majorcool
/// Archives at http://www.team.net/archive
|