Re: 9th Amendment: a dead letter?

Larry <x@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in
news:x-07925C.22214702052008@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 

> 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 don't think GB is asking that every word in a statute be defined.  But 
it would be a problem if NY's murder statute stated that it was illegal 
to murder somebody.

<snip>