|
I think this quesiton only applies to Maryland, but I know there are
one or two regular posters here who know a lot about Maryland.
When thumbing through the statute books, I've notice many sections of
the law that only apply to specific counties. The first line of the
statute section specifies which counties they apply to.
They name them. They don't say, Counties with populations more than
250,000, or with less than x feet per resident of shoreline on the
Chesapeake Bay.
It was years ago and I either didn't look or have forgotten what sorts
of laws they were. I know it wasn't murder or anything universal. I
could probably find them again if you want me to.
But how is it constitutional at all to have laws that are specificed
to apply only to one or more counties and not the whole state? What
about the 14th Amendment?
Is there any other state where this is also the case?
If you are inclined to email me
for some reason, remove NOPSAM :-)
|
| |
| |
On Wed, 26 Mar 2008 07:15:02 -0400, mm <NOPSAMmm2005@bigfoot.com>
wrote:
I think this quesiton only applies to Maryland, but I know there are
one or two regular posters here who know a lot about Maryland.
When thumbing through the statute books, I've notice many sections of
the law that only apply to specific counties. The first line of the
statute section specifies which counties they apply to.
They name them. They don't say, Counties with populations more than
250,000, or with less than x feet per resident of shoreline on the
Chesapeake Bay.
. . . .
But how is it constitutional at all to have laws that are specificed
to apply only to one or more counties and not the whole state? What
about the 14th Amendment?
Is there any other state where this is also the case?
This is not at all uncommon. Many states dikstinguish counties or
cities by size or location in various legislation. The theory is that
the state has the power to legislate according to local circumstances.
Of course, if the state actually discriminates in enacting that
legislation, that's a different story. (For example, when Alabama
redrew the city limits of Tuskeegee to exclude African Americans, it
was held unconstiutional.)
Daniel Reitman
|
| |
| |
Wed, 26 Mar 2008 07:15:02 -0400 from mm <NOPSAMmm2005@bigfoot.com>:
I think this quesiton only applies to Maryland, but I know there are
one or two regular posters here who know a lot about Maryland.
When thumbing through the statute books, I've notice many sections of
the law that only apply to specific counties. The first line of the
statute section specifies which counties they apply to.
But how is it constitutional at all to have laws that are specificed
to apply only to one or more counties and not the whole state?
Those are not "home rule counties", or were not, at the time of the
legislation. Home rule counties pass their own legislation; the
General Assembly must pass county laws for the others. I don't know
the mechanism by which the General Assembly determines what
legislation the county residents want, but presumably there is
something. Most likely that county's delegates and senators have
quite a lot of say in the passage of county legislation.
I don't recall the process for a county to become a home rule county,
but presumably it can be read in the constitution at
http://www.msa.md.gov/msa/mdmanual/43const/html/const.html
This search may be helpful too:
http://query.mdarchives.state.md.us/search?site=mdmanual_coll&sort=date%3AD%3AL%3Ad1&output=xml_no_dtd&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&client=mdarchives_FE&proxystylesheet=mdarchives_FE&filter=0&q=home+rule
--
If you e-mail me from a fake address, your fingers will drop off.
I am not a lawyer; this is not legal advice. When you read anything
legal on the net, always verify it on your own, in light of your
particular circumstances. You may also need to consult a lawyer.
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com
|
| |
| |
mm wrote:
I think this quesiton only applies to Maryland, but I know there are
one or two regular posters here who know a lot about Maryland.
When thumbing through the statute books, I've notice many sections of
the law that only apply to specific counties. The first line of the
statute section specifies which counties they apply to.
They name them. They don't say, Counties with populations more than
250,000, or with less than x feet per resident of shoreline on the
Chesapeake Bay.
It was years ago and I either didn't look or have forgotten what sorts
of laws they were. I know it wasn't murder or anything universal. I
could probably find them again if you want me to.
But how is it constitutional at all to have laws that are specificed
to apply only to one or more counties and not the whole state? What
about the 14th Amendment?
Is there any other state where this is also the case?
I've seen that in SC as well, often in regards to things like liquor
laws and such. As to how it passes constitutional muster, I couldn't
say. But it's not just MD that does such.
|
| |
| |
On Mar 26, 7:15 am, mm <NOPSAMmm2...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
But how is it constitutional at all to have laws that are specificed
to apply only to one or more counties and not the whole state? What
about the 14th Amendment?
if you can provide examples, it might be easier for others to
understand/explain
|
| |
| |
mm <NOPSAMmm2005@bigfoot.com> wrote:
I think this question only applies to Maryland,
but I know there are one or two regular posters
here who know a lot about Maryland.
When thumbing through the statute books, I've
notice many sections of the law that only apply
to specific counties. The first line of the
statute section specifies which counties they
apply to. ..
This is definitely the case in administrative law.
In criminal law and civil law, there may be such
exceptions, but I suspect they are infrequent to
rare.
The most striking distention of which I am aware
are the statutes on alcohol. In some counties,
the Liquor Board is appointed by the County Council
while in some counties the Liquor Board is the
County Council. In either Montgomery or Prince
George's County, liquor is sold only through ABC
stores.
Homebrewers of beer, alcohol, and Mead are allowed
to brew 100 gallons per year to a maximum of 200
gallons per household, but may not sell, barter, or
trade with it. However, St. Mary's County is the
singular exception where "cider or native wines may
be sold by their maker without a license." While
the State Legislature wrangles for allowing slot
machines at race tracks, St. Mary's just went ahead
licensed them under a non de plume of something
like "Lottery Machines."
There are only four highly populated counties in
Maryland: Baltimore City. Baltimore County,
Montgomery County, and Prince George's County,
With the exception of Howard County and Anne
Arundel County, the remaining 18 counties are
heavily rural. Under Maryland law, counties
exercise powers reserved in most other states at
the municipal or state levels, so there is little
incentive for a community to incorporate.
They name them. They don't say, Counties with
populations more than 250,000, or with less than
x feet per resident of shoreline on the Chesapeake
Bay.
I believe there only the six counties named above
have population over 250,000 - although Frederick
County may be approaching thet population.
It was years ago and I either didn't look or have
forgotten what sorts of laws they were. I know
it wasn't murder or anything universal. I could
probably find them again if you want me to.
It is as I stated administrative law.
But how is it constitutional at all to have laws
that are specified to apply only to one or more
counties and not the whole state? What about
the 14th Amendment?
The 14th Amendment? This is Maryland where they
do what they choose to do. ;)
Is there any other state where this is also
the case?
What you are really asking is "Are there other
States where the powers vest in the Counties?"
It would not surprise me if there were several
agricultural States where that is the case.
In Nevada, prostitution is illegal by Stats
statute in counties with a population over
400,000 (meaning Clark County - Las Vegas).
Some counties have chosen to make it illegal.
Dick
- I fear not the hereafter. Maryland is my Purgatory.
|
| |
| |
Stan Brown wrote:
http://www.msa.md.gov/msa/mdmanual/43const/html/const.html
I took a QUICK glance at the MD state constitution at that link and
thought it was kinda funny that they had mentioned off-street parking in
Baltimore in the constitution. Seems like there'd be more appropriate
places for such (such as, oh, I dunno...maybe in the state code?) for such.
|
| |
| |
c <smalltalkingchicken@gmail.com> wrote:
mm <NOPSAMmm2...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
if you can provide examples, it might be easier for others to
understand/explain
Well, in California there are laws that apply only to specific
counties. Some of them are test projects to see how they work. Others
are based on some trait that nominally makes it reasonable. For
example some laws only apply to counties with populations of more than
4 million - and only Los Angeles qualifies.
Stu
|
| |
| |
But how is it constitutional at all to have laws that are specificed
to apply only to one or more counties and not the whole state? What
about the 14th Amendment?
The 14th amendment does not grant rights to county governments.
Is there any other state where this is also the case?
This issue came up in Indiana recently when the Toll Road was
sold off to private investors. The law authorizing the sale
and making other transportation policy changes was not uniformly
applicable to the entire state, as is ordinarily required under
the state constitution. In upholding the law the courts reviewed
precedent which said that the legislature may make nonuniform laws
if there is a legitimate reason. It is permissible to name names
instead of listing criteria, especially if the situation is unique.
In Massachusetts the constitution says a law applicable to a single
town is subject to home rule limitations whether the town is
identified by name or by category. You might as well write "Boston"
in the law rather than "any city with population over 500,000 as of
the 2000 census." However, a law that formally has statewide effect
but impacts only a few towns may be considered a general law. The
abolition of rent control was considered a statewide law even though
only three cities had rent control ordinances.
A law applicable to a single town requires approval of the town or
a supermajority vote of the legislature. Subject to that limitation,
the legislature is free to pass legislation with limited scope. If
you look at the list of recently passed laws in Massachusetts you
will find most of them are related to a particular town:
http://www.mass.gov/legis/laws/seslaw08/index.htm
Often a town fails to properly advertise a local election or
other vote and needs a special act of the legislature to ratify
the results. Whether such a law is justified is a matter of
judgment in the particular circumstance.
--
John Carr (jfc@mit.edu)
|
| |
| |
Sat, 29 Mar 2008 08:45:39 -0400 from Mike <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com>:
Stan Brown wrote:
I took a QUICK glance at the MD state constitution at that link and
thought it was kinda funny that they had mentioned off-street parking in
Baltimore in the constitution. Seems like there'd be more appropriate
places for such (such as, oh, I dunno...maybe in the state code?) for such.
We're all used to the US Constitution in its brevity and its
exclusion of statute law. But most state constitutions are longer and
contain statute law.
Indeed, in states like Ohio the system almost guarantees that. The
people can pass laws by initiative, but there's nothing to stop the
state legislature from repealing those laws. So the people are forced
to pass constitutional amendments, which can't be changed
unilaterally by the legislature.
--
If you e-mail me from a fake address, your fingers will drop off.
I am not a lawyer; this is not legal advice. When you read anything
legal on the net, always verify it on your own, in light of your
particular circumstances. You may also need to consult a lawyer.
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com
|
| |
| |
mm <NOPSAMmm2005@bigfoot.com> wrote in
news:jrbku3t5ckv8jcv07he1o42moo8qk0qu1e@4ax.com:
I think this quesiton only applies to Maryland, but I know there are
one or two regular posters here who know a lot about Maryland.
When thumbing through the statute books, I've notice many sections of
the law that only apply to specific counties. The first line of the
statute section specifies which counties they apply to.
They name them. They don't say, Counties with populations more than
250,000, or with less than x feet per resident of shoreline on the
Chesapeake Bay.
It was years ago and I either didn't look or have forgotten what sorts
of laws they were. I know it wasn't murder or anything universal. I
could probably find them again if you want me to.
But how is it constitutional at all to have laws that are specificed
to apply only to one or more counties and not the whole state? What
about the 14th Amendment?
The answer is that the Supreme Court has held that 14th Amendment does not
require identical application of the law, but equal protection of the law.
In practice, the Court has set up three categories of what it calls
"scrutiny," by which variances are examined. The first is "strict," and
applies to laws that differentiate on the basis of race or ethnicity or
laws that deal with fundamental rights like voting. To pass strict
scrutiny such laws must be narrowly constructed, serve a compelling state
interest, and there must be no other way to serve that interest. The
second level is intermediate scrutiny, which applies to sex (what is more
commonly now called gender) and these laws must be substantially related to
an important state interest. Any other laws that apply differently to
different people must pass only the third level, the rational basis test.
These laws must be reasonably related to a legitimate state interest.
<snip>
|
| |
| |
On Sun, 30 Mar 2008 07:58:09 -0400, Stan Brown
<the_stan_brown@fastmail.fm> wrote:
Sat, 29 Mar 2008 08:45:39 -0400 from Mike <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com>:
We're all used to the US Constitution in its brevity and its
exclusion of statute law. But most state constitutions are longer and
contain statute law.
Indeed, in states like Ohio the system almost guarantees that. The
people can pass laws by initiative, but there's nothing to stop the
state legislature from repealing those laws. So the people are forced
to pass constitutional amendments, which can't be changed
unilaterally by the legislature.
California, I understand, has an enormously long constitution. Some
of the issues become famous nationwide, Proposition 18, for example
and a couple others. Those are all referenda on amendments to their
constitution, and I think there are one or more at every state-wide
non-primary election.
Thanks for all the replies in this thread and two others that I
started, but didn't post again. I read everything carefully.
If you are inclined to email me
for some reason, remove NOPSAM :-)
|
| |
| |
In article <0aesu3d0nob0rcmk7i8oaeibc0iet0d8s0@4ax.com>,
John F. Carr <jfc@mit.edu> wrote:
In Massachusetts the constitution says a law applicable to a single
town is subject to home rule limitations whether the town is
identified by name or by category. You might as well write "Boston"
in the law rather than "any city with population over 500,000 as of
the 2000 census." However, a law that formally has statewide effect
but impacts only a few towns may be considered a general law. The
abolition of rent control was considered a statewide law even though
only three cities had rent control ordinances.
Did the law say "existing rent control laws are repealed" (in which
case it did affect only three cities), or "rent control laws are void
now and in the future" (in which case it affected the entire state,
because it prevented all cities from having rent control).
A "no smoking on buses" law restricts my behavior, even though I don't
smoke.
Seth
|
| |
| |
In article <ihihv3toh3fr6hvieti5gmns8fk0jfda3d@4ax.com>,
Seth <sethb@panix.com> wrote:
In article <0aesu3d0nob0rcmk7i8oaeibc0iet0d8s0@4ax.com>,
John F. Carr <jfc@mit.edu> wrote:
Did the law say "existing rent control laws are repealed" (in which
case it did affect only three cities), or "rent control laws are void
now and in the future" (in which case it affected the entire state,
because it prevented all cities from having rent control).
The law had continuing effect, so it in principle affected
more than three cities.
--
John Carr (jfc@mit.edu)
|
| |
| |
|
