Your posts remind me of a quote from one of the Governor's movies:But the fact of the matter still remains: I asked for the enacting clause on "Public Intoxication" my friend, not one Titled: "Disorderly Conduct".
Besides the rule is this: That One law, shall express but one title, one purpose on its face. I guess I just takes things too literally!
This is where we'll have to agree to disagree.
You can't seem to be reasoned with, and it doesn't appear that you'll ever stop.That terminator is out there. It can't be bargained with! It can't be reasoned with! It doesn't feel pity, or remorse, or fear. And it absolutely will not stop, ever, until you are dead!
By the way, you misquoted California's constitution. It actually states:
The subject of Section 647 is "disorderly conduct." The fact that a variety of conduct is defined as disorderly is not a problem.A statute shall embrace but one subject, which shall be
expressed in its title. If a statute embraces a subject not
expressed in its title, only the part not expressed is void. A
statute may not be amended by reference to its title. A section of a
statute may not be amended unless the section is re-enacted as
amended.
The narrow public intoxication provision is not at all foreign to the broader disorderly conduct subject.It is well established that the purpose of this constitutional provision is not to destroy legislation germane to the general object declared in the title but to protect against the passage of provisions foreign to the title, subject and purposes of an act; that this provision must be liberally construed to uphold legislation whose parts are reasonably germane.
Next?
.
Last edited: