WHERE DO YOU GET YOUR INFORMATION?

WHERE DO YOU GET THE INFORMATION YOU RELY ON?

WHERE DO YOU GET THE INFORMATION YOU RELY ON WHEN IT COMES TO LEGAL ISSUES?



I've been studying law for over 30 years. 



This is what I rely on regarding what I think, speak, write and type when it comes to law:
  1.  Court decisions, State and federal
  2.  Law Dictionaries (Black's, Bouviers, Ballentine...)
  3.  Statutes
  4.  Legislative History
  5.  Codes
  6.  Legal Encyclopedias (American Jurisprudence, California Jurisprudence)
  7.  Attorney General Opinions (State & federal)
  8.  Law Review Articles
The law is codified in the State and federal codes.   The legislators make law.   Congress makes the law.   The judges determine if the law is valid and correctly applied.

When accused of violating a code section the idea is to read the code section and then back-engineer it.   Every law has an origin. 

When making a determination about law by a judicial officer they will inevitably look into the history of the law.   Many court decisions provide the history of a law.   The legislative history of a law is public record and is available to anyone to review.

When it comes to law, knowing is better than guessing.   


"We thus require citizens to apprise themselves not only of statutory language but also of legislative history ... and underlying legislative purposes.
People v. Morse (1993) 21 Cal.App.4th 259

We thus require citizens to apprise themselves not only of statutory language but also of legislative history, subsequent judicial construction, and underlying legislative purposes. (See generally Amsterdam, The Void-For-Vagueness Doctrine in the Supreme Court (1960) 109 U. Pa. L.Rev. 67.)
Walker v. Superior Court (1988) 47 Cal.3d 112
People v. Grubb (1965) 63 Cal.2d 614

Those decisions make perfect sense given the fact the government was created by the people (employers) who are required to know their company's purpose and how it and the employees function.

The good news is that State and federal court decisions are available on the net.    It's simply a matter of using a search engine to find the laws and court decisions.

And remember the law library where every answer to every question about law is located.   

     




BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY, 1st Ed., 1891

BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY, 4th Ed., 1951

BOUVIER'S LAW DICTIONARY, 1914 Ed., Vols. 1, 2, 3














THAT'S THE CORPORATE CHARTER FOR THE CORPORATION NAMED STATE OF CALIFORNIA

THE CORPORATE CHARTER APPLIES TO THE GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, NOT THE EMPLOYERS


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.
Summary of California Law, vol 7, Constitutional Law, p. 9

...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.]

...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 well-recognized rule of interpretation contained in the maxim expressio unius est exclusio alterius may be resorted to in construing a constitutional provision (Gilgert v. Stockton Port District, 7 Cal.2d 384, 387 [60 P.2d 847]; Martello v. Superior Court, 202 Cal. 400, 406 [261 P. 476]; Yosemite L. Co. v. Industrial Acc. Com., 187 Cal. 774, 781 [204 P. 226, 20 A.L.R. 994]),
and applying that rule to section 23 of article IV, the Legislature may make no additions to the items specified by the People.
Ibid.
   
until the People, by their vote, relinquish the right they have retained
Ibid.

the People's right in this regard has not been challenged by the Legislature
Ibid.
   
the Constitution have been submitted to the People
Ibid.
   
the Legislature has asked the People to make other changes
Ibid.
   
The varying measure of control which the People have exercised
Ibid.
   
the Constitution of 1849.   By that document, the People determined:
Ibid.
   
the People withdrew from the Legislature the unqualified right to
Ibid.
   
the People specified
Ibid.
   
the Legislature may make no additions to the items specified by the People.
Ibid.
   
an amount fixed by the People
Ibid.   
                                   
"Constitutions do not change with the varying tides of public opinion and desire. The will of the people therein recorded is the same inflexible law until changed by their own deliberative action."
Ibid.

...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].)
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.]

[2] The people of the State of California are supreme and have the undoubted right to protect themselves and to preserve the form of government...
Steiner v. Darby (1948) 88 Cal.App.2d 481

"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 (1866) 30 Cal. 185

CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE
        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".

The State Constitution restricts the conduct of the government employees.   The State Constitution limits the conduct of the government employees.   The State Constutition is the employee regulations for the government company.   Neither the State nor federal constitution GIVES the people anything!   The documents protect and secured the clearly established constitutionally secured inalienable rights of the people for whom government was created. 











CLICK







https://thelawsalon.net/links.html




https://thelawsalon.net/research.html