Re: 9th Amendment: a dead letter?

In article <481bca80$0$7078$4c368faf@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
 "GeekBoy" <geek@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:

> "Larry" <x@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message 
> news:x-56FD38.11251102052008@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > In article <481ab22c$0$7075$4c368faf@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
> > "GeekBoy" <geek@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> >
> >> "Larry" <x@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
> >> news:x-945535.22512401052008@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >> > In article <481a7aea$0$30169$4c368faf@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
> >> > "GeekBoy" <geek@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> "Larry" <x@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
> >> >> news:x-81CE27.22051501052008@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >> >> > In article <481a7540$0$30239$4c368faf@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
> >> >> > "GeekBoy" <geek@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> No, pay attention to all, just just one thing.
> >> >> >> I recall on incident were a person in CA was arrested on a
charge. 
> >> >> >> The
> >> >> >> law
> >> >> >> stated an offense, but does not define what the offense is.
Which 
> >> >> >> this
> >> >> >> person brought before their attorney. Attorney refuses to hear
it
> >> >> >> stating
> >> >> >> "Well the courts have 'defined' it for us thus I am not
touching 
> >> >> >> it".
> >> >> >> Well,
> >> >> >> ghee, since when do CA courts have the authority to make 
> >> >> >> legislation?
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Of course this person found another attorney.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > And of course you don't have a cite for this far-fetched
anecdote,
> >> >> > right?
> >> >>
> >> >> Hardly far fetched. I have to look it up, but I can give you an 
> >> >> example
> >> >> of
> >> >> how the PC reads, not how it is worded.
> >> >>
> >> >> ---------------------------------------------------------
> >> >> PC Code 10000000:
> >> >>
> >> >> (1) It shall be unlawful for a person to commit robbery.
> >> >>
> >> >>     (a) Any person  found guilty of robbery shall be confined to
jail 
> >> >> for
> >> >> a
> >> >> term not to exceed one year.
> >> >> ---------------------------------------------------------
> >> >>
> >> >> Again this is a made up of code to show you how it reads. In this 
> >> >> example
> >> >> as
> >> >> in comparison, there would be no defintion of robbery in the whole
CA
> >> >> Penal
> >> >> Code. I need to take the time to find it what PC it exactly is.
> >> >>
> >> >> So then the court says something like, "Any reasonble reasonable 
> >> >> person
> >> >> would know what robbery is."
> >> >
> >> > So you're sup****ting your anecdotal, unsourced story with a 
> >> > hypothetical
> >> > law?  Like I said before, please continue.... you're providing me
with
> >> > some entertainment this evening.
> >> >
> >> > And FYI, the real California robbery statute, 211-215, states in
part
> >> > "Robbery is the felonious taking of personal property in the
> >> > possession of another, from his person or immediate presence, and
> >> > against his will, accomplished by means of force or fear."
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> >
> >> > I think you'll find that all statutes have a definitions section
such 
> >> > as
> >> > this one either in another subsection of the statute, or for a
phrase 
> >> > of
> >> > general usage, elsewhere in the criminal/penal code.  Otherwise,
they'd
> >> > be constitutionally void for vagueness.
> >>
> >>
> >> Yes I realize that, but in this case the law has no definition..
> >
> > You mean in the hypothetical, anecdotal case you referred to a few
posts
> > back?  The one that you can't substantiate at all?  I just want to
make
> > sure we're both talking about the same case.
> >
> >> I did a
> >> search myself of the entire Cal PC. I am trying to recall the words
of 
> >> the
> >> Cal Supreme Court, as I don't have the time right now to dig up that
case
> >> law or that PC at this moment.
> >>
> >> Well I can't recall now so I wil have to find it this weekend
> >
> > I eagerly await the results of your endeavor.
> 
> And here is some of it. This was about 3 years ago. I cannot recall
where I 
> read about this case. Forum? SacBee?
> 
> "647.6.  (a) (1) Every person who annoys or molests any child under
> 18 years of age shall be punished by a fine not exceeding five
> thousand dollars ($5,000), by imprisonment in a county jail not
> exceeding one year, or by both the fine and imprisonment."
> 
> His claim was that "annoys or molests" was not defined anywhere in the
penal 
> code. I myself did a search of all the pencal code to find if there was
a 
> definition. I could not find any.
> 
> There is where the Cal SC stepped in. If I recal correctly, the CaLSC 
> indicated that "any reasonable person would find offensive." But then
again 
> you are the one suppose to be an expert at knowing these cases, or where
to 
> find them quickly. Yep, seems to me the Cal SC writing legislation.

That's what you found?  Really?  You think "annoy" needs to be defined?  
Really?

Hey, NY's murder statute makes it illegal to intentionally cause the 
death of someone else.  But the penal law doesn't define what it means 
to be "dead."  I don't see that as a problem.


> I had saved the penal code site as an OFFLINE page so I could retreieve
see 
> if any changes had been made..I have not look at it till now..seems
there 
> has been some change.
> 
> Seems the law has changed since he made his claim and the following has
been 
> added from a comparison of the old one I saved, so maybe he did win.
> 
> "(2) Every person who, motivated by an unnatural or abnormal ***ual
> interest in children, engages in conduct with an adult whom he or
> she believes to be a child under 18 years of age, which conduct, if
> directed toward a child under 18 years of age, would be a violation
> of this section, shall be punished by a fine not exceeding five
> thousand dollars ($5,000), by imprisonment in a county jail for up to
> one year, or by both that fine and imprisonment"

Well, this is much more narrow than the original law, so I doubt this 
was strictly a response to his argument.  It was a narrowing of the 
statute.