Have Legal Questions? Ask a Lawyer Now.
Where in the California Constitution or the statutes does is state that this practice is required for bills to be enacted and become law?
I know it was in the 1849-1850 California Constitution, Article IV Sec. 1, but not in the 1979-1880 California Constitution.
If it is not required, then why do the legislative bodies put it at the beginning of every bill? Are some sections of the earlier Constitution still binding?
Or, is it because it is an age old Common Law requirement for the enacting clause to be at the front of every legislative bill. Is such a common law requirement arguably enforceable in a case at court.
If the enacting clause is stated on every legislative bill, does it follow that it does not have to be stated when such bills are codified as statutes or codes?
I read somewhere that every statute has to be prefaced on it face with its title and the enacting authority. It this just someone's opinion?
You made an interesting point about the official record is kept by the Secretary of State, which raises another question. In Califormia, the bills passed by the legislature are codified by those not employees of the state directly but interpreted and codified by outside services, probably all attorneys. The State does not produce the Penal the Code, or any of the other 28 California Codes. Yet, the courts and the lawyers all rely on these "Codes" in their cases before the court, or otherwise. Nobody ever gets to use the actual legislative documents. How do we really know that what is in the Codes is the correct laws as they were actually enacted? I know it's custom, but does that make it correct and does it protect or serve the citizens as intended?
My succinct question is, what "law" is truly being enforced in our courts, and do we as citizens have any recourse if we discover errors, omissions or misrepresntations in the codes?
I forgot to ask about your comment about it being "just custom." Does it being "just custom" mean that there is no significance or requirement to follow the common law?
Your reply: "As for the custom, I think that a bill that was sufficient per the constitution, but did not follow custom to a "T" would still be enforceable," evaded my question and did not answer it. I would appreciate a more responsive reply.
I have one more semi-related question.
Where can I find information about the legislative intent for the 1994 Three Strikes law in California (and/or as amended) regarding penal convictions that occurred prior to the Three Strikes Law enactment, and how any such prior convictions can be counted as "strikes"? I have heard that a "strike" is declared by the Judge at the time of sentencing. Where might I find an answer to this question?
Thank you for the references. There were a lot of items to choose from on the Three Strikes Law. I read one or two that were analyses of the bill and its effects on California, and comparisons with the existing laws
Can you tell me which one was the final bill as passed?
My friend in prison was sentenced in 1994. I believe the law in effect at that time would apply. Am I correct?
How many times after 1994 has it been amended, prior to the most recent amendment about non-serious or non-violent crimes.
Or would all of the subsequent amendments apply to his sentencing. He does not fit into the parameters of the recent amendment.
Please let me know where I can find and read any amendments to the Three Strikes Law.
Hi again.You can read about the amendment by CLICKING HERE.