Legal Issues

[Bushnud2]

A question has been posted in 'Legal Issues' of this Forum.
Asking if a precedent set in California could be used in another country.
Re State of California vs Bost.
Could any legal industry members of this Forum kindly go to 'Legal Issues' and respond, stating your legal status.
Any other comments are welcome too.

Many thanks
Bushnud
Queensland

[Bushnud2]

A question has been posted in 'Legal Issues' of this Forum.
Asking if a precedent set in California could be used in another country.
Re State of California vs Bost.
Could any legal industry members of this Forum kindly go to 'Legal Issues' and respond, stating your legal status.
Any other comments are welcome too.

Many thanks
Bushnud
Queensland

[DKirkpatrick]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bushnud:
A question has been posted in 'Legal Issues' of this Forum.
Asking if a precedent set in California could be used in another country.
Re State of California vs Bost.
Could any legal industry members of this Forum kindly go to 'Legal Issues' and respond, stating your legal status.
Any other comments are welcome too.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I am not an attorney, but 'no' is a general answer. That is bacuse the constitutions and rights outlined by sovereign nations are different, even when they have similarities. In short, there is no jurisdictional association.

However, when there are similarities in laws, any argument that passed in one country, may pass in another when copied and then adjusted for the individual country's laws.

So, copy it and try it.

DMK

[Sauna]

In many countries the constitution law demands that president must be born in the country. This is a real hurdle in many cases.

[hatesclothes]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Sauna:
In many countries the constitution law demands that president must be born in the country. This is a real hurdle in many cases. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Given the 'governator' situation, Im GLAD we have such a provision. sorry if that's a prob with any...
Re: Bushnud's Q: actually the answer isn't clear cut. The source of U.S. legal basis was originally from English (British?) law. From them, we got such 'wonderful' principles as Sovereign Immunity, which was based on the theory that the Sovereign, who was acting in the place of Deity, could 'do no wrong', and was therefore immune from legal action(s). This still 'protects' states from actions of their citizens in (too many) cases, but is not found in the US Constitution...
So; if a new(nude) Q came up here, a sitting US judge COULD consider cases from another jurisdiction for precidence, it wouldn't be "automatic" as USSC cases would be though.

take care, stay bare!

[John P]

Another way of looking at "sovereign immunity" is that the King agreed to set up and run a system of courts to resolve disputes, but he wouldn't allow that system to be used to sue him. And allowing for the fact that the King wanted to be supreme, maybe if the courts once started chasing him it could never be a fair process anyway, as depending on his degree of power, he'd always win or always lose. That's not quite the same as "can do no wrong".

[usuallylurk]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Sauna:
In many countries the constitution law demands that president must be born in the country. This is a real hurdle in many cases. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That is true in the United States, although our President is NOT a "Sovereign". Our President is a civilian. And he is subject to the same laws as the rest of us.


The requirements are -

- the candidate must be 35 years old at inauguration --- or a citizen at the time of the ratification of the Constitution, which was 1787, so there isn't anyone out there that qualifies.

- must be a "native born" United States Citizen -- which means "citizen at birth".

- no one individual can serve more than two terms (minor extensions for those who took over someone else's term)

The civilian - NON-ROYAL, NON-NOBILITY provisions are built into the Constitution. The "founding fathers" did not intend for the President to be a sovereign person, or royalty, or even one with a title of nobility.

The "native born" provision was written in there, supposedly, not to prevent a Schwartzenegger or Kissinger from assuming the top slot, but to preclude the possibility of a foreign noble from taking control of the government.

[Bushnud2]

Thank you for your replies about Kings and Presidents to my question about Precedent.
Very helpful.

Bushnud
Queensland
<still larfing>

[Naturist Mark]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Thank you for your replies about Kings and Presidents to my question about Precedent.
Very helpful. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Topics do tend to veer off into their own directions, but the first response to your question by D. Kirkpatrick was correct.

Non jurisdictional precedent (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precedent) is not binding, but it can be persuasive.

Precedent is only legally binding in the jurisdiction in which it is set. But it is common for a decision's reasoning to be used in other jurisdictions to support similar cases, even though it is not binding. Good reasoning is good reasoning.

Two examples are the court decisions that made topfreedom legal in New York and Ohio.

In New York it essentially came down to equal protection (or rights), such that the law must treat men and women equally, so women in New York may be topfree anywhere men are permitted to be. That decision was appealed to a statewide appeals court in New York - so that precedent applied to the entire State.

In Ohio Topfreedom was made legal because the public indecency law only prohibits the exposure of one's "person" or "genitals" and anus. It was shown that the historic, legal and medical use of those terms do not apply to breasts - which are not genitals - therefore breasts are not indecent. The Ohio decision used previous precedent from Ohio, and from other States out of the court's juridiction - accepting their reasoning as relevant to the case.

In most other American jurisdictions where topfreedom is now legal one or the other precedent, although non binding, were persuasive enough to be accepted by other courts.

The US Supreme court has recently caused some controversy (http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4506232/) by using foreign precedent as a factor in deciding American cases.

You probably aren't going to get far claiming a US precedent in Australian court, but you may very well be able to apply the same arguments.

-Mark (not a lawyer - degree in Public Administration - once upon a time federal investigator Army/civilian)

[Bushnud2]

Thank you Mark for your words of wisdom and opinion. And for not mentioning Kings or Presidents !
With your permission I will forward your message to Free Beaches Australia who are supporting Ken Wenzel and his appeal. You have some interesting points.
Kind regards Bushnud.
In freezing Queensland

[Bushnud2]

Deadlocked Supreme Court: 'Someone's Voting Twice'
July 17, 2006 | Issue 42•29 The Onion


WASHINGTON, DC- The Supreme Court's third 5-5 vote in the past month has some justices wondering whether one of their number is voting twice. "As the highest court in the land, it's vital that the Supreme Court observes the basic rule of one vote per justice, even if it's hard to pick a side," a spokesman for Chief Justice John Roberts said. "The court will begin again on Thursday in the usual fashion, writing votes for SCOTUS case 11816, People v. Padilla and Brown, on little slips of paper, placing them into the Supreme Court voting hat, and not peeking." Observers are calling this the worst breach of court procedure since Chief Justice Warren Burger temporarily moved the court to an Arlington, VA Red Lobster for the inaugural Lobsterfest in 1983.

The Onion July 20 2006

[missouriboy]

I thought Onion Stains belonged in the Fun and Humor forum!?!? http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/confused.gif

[Bushnud2]

Is your message an Opinon or Argument ?
Point took.
Bushnud