Georgiapacking.org banner

41 - 60 of 93 Posts

·
GeePeeDoHolic
Joined
·
6,399 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
8,460 Posts
It happens every year, but 2013 is when SB 340 passed, so the issue is different from 2014 forward than it was before. SB 340 is the bill that said reenactment of the OCGA gives the OCGA the force of law (see OCGA 28-9-5). SB 340 was passed after Rutter v. Rutter, in which the S. Ct. of GA said in FN 3 that the Code Review Commission's decision to put something or not put something in the OCGA "plays no part" in the court's determination of what current law is. My opinion is that SB 340 was in reaction to Rutter v. Rutter.

The legislature did, by the way, reenact the OCGA the next year, and the annotations in my statute book say that 16-11-62 is now as the Supreme Court said it is not, because of reenactment. The current code (16-11-62(2)(C)) has the curtilage exception. The annotations in my book are not law, of course.

The note says:

The version of Code Section 16-11-62 that was in effect on the date of this decision, as set out in the bound volume, was subsequently reenacted and adopted by the General Assembly in 2014 by Ga. L. 2014, p. 866, § 54/ SB 340.
For even more on this, the code revision commission also writes notes into the annotated code that MP mentions. So the fact that the annotated code contains footnotes about the law, such as 16-11-62, are written by the people who the Supreme Court told they were wrong.

Are they correct now in that they do "play a part" or are they just being sore losers? In my opinion the are being sore losers.

The problem I have is that even if we get an Appeals Court Supreme Court decision that what the Code Revision commission resolved the non-conflict of 826, the code revision commission will act like sore losers again and simply ignore the decision and keep the law as it is now. There should be some method to force an update of the OCGA to conform with what a court says the law is, instead of the same group who were just told they were wrong and being able to not only ignore it but to flaunt it.
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
68,114 Posts
For even more on this, the code revision commission also writes notes into the annotated code
True, although I do not know who wrote the one I quoted.

that MP mentions. So the fact that the annotated code contains footnotes about the law, such as 16-11-62, are written by the people who the Supreme Court told they were wrong.
Maybe, but I think we are probably speculating. Maybe somebody in legislative counsel knows.

The problem I have is that even if we get an Appeals Court Supreme Court decision that what the Code Revision commission resolved the non-conflict of 826, the code revision commission will act like sore losers again and simply ignore the decision and keep the law as it is now. There should be some method to force an update of the OCGA to conform with what a court says the law is, instead of the same group who were just told they were wrong and being able to not only ignore it but to flaunt it.
Agreed.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
8,460 Posts
I still think that the courts will not allow the legislature to give the Revision Commission the power to determine what the actual law is. Which is what the legislature tried to do with SB 340.

I think the judiciary will say that no, a blanket passage saying that what some Revision Commission did in writing down what was passed last year is now what the actual law is this year will ever be allowed as per the GA constitution...

Paragraph IV. Statutes and sections of Code, how amended. No law or section of the Code shall be amended or repealed by mere reference to its title or to the number of the section of the Code; but the amending or repealing Act shall distinctly describe the law or Code section to be amended or repealed as well as the alteration to be made.
If there was a conflict or not is up the the judiciary to decide. That is their role. They will not allow the legislature to say that no, this is now the role of the Code Revision Commission. I just don't see that ever happening.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,458 Posts
I still think that the courts will not allow the legislature to give the Revision Commission the power to determine what the actual law is. Which is what the legislature tried to do with SB 340.

I think the judiciary will say that no, a blanket passage saying that what some Revision Commission did in writing down what was passed last year is now what the actual law is this year will ever be allowed as per the GA constitution...

If there was a conflict or not is up the the judiciary to decide. That is their role. They will not allow the legislature to say that no, this is now the role of the Code Revision Commission. I just don't see that ever happening.
I hope you're right. It's really a terrible precedent to allow such a body to completely rewrite laws and give political cover by waving a magic wand over either sloppy legislative work or politically difficult decisions.
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
68,114 Posts
I still think that the courts will not allow the legislature to give the Revision Commission the power to determine what the actual law is. Which is what the legislature tried to do with SB 340.
Yeah, but they can do that while still saying guns in school are bad, m'kay?
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
8,460 Posts
Yeah, but they can do that while still saying guns in school are bad, m'kay?
I agree, I think that we will lose for some other reason than the reenactment.

If I were to guess, I would say the court would completely destroy the argument that a reenactment could alter the determination of a court (restoring (2)(C)) while finding some half baked reason why guns are still not allowed in schools.
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
68,114 Posts
Lines 145 - 159.
Lines 483-490!
Please see lines 503-509.
Keeping it tidy (rolling synopsis)...
GA HB 90 by Wendell Willard (of the 51st)
http://www.legis.ga.gov/Legislation/en-US/display/20152016/HB/90

Document PDF...
http://www.legis.ga.gov/Legislation/20152016/145792.pdf

See page 16... Section 54... Lines 503-509.​
So, what does everybody think? The first lines quoted mention school functions, which were deleted by HB 826. That one sentence would be reenacted and adopted if HB 90 passes. The second lines quoted are the reenactment. The third lines quoted are the but-not-if-it-was-an-Act-but-not-put-in-the-OCGA provision.

Analysis?

End result?

Your opinions are as good as anybody else's. Nobody sitting on a bench and wearing a robe is posting here. Let's hear those opinions.
 

·
Junior Butt Warmer
Joined
·
46,427 Posts
Gunstar1 said:
There should be some method to force an update of the OCGA to conform with what a court says the law is, instead of the same group who were just told they were wrong and being able to not only ignore it but to flaunt it.
Yeah, I don't see any penalties or criminalization listed in 28-9-5.
 

·
Junior Butt Warmer
Joined
·
46,427 Posts
Malum Prohibitum said:
Your opinions are as good as anybody else's.
http://www.lexisnexis.com/hottopics/gacode/

OCGA 28-9-5 said:
(b) For purposes of publishing volumes, replacement volumes, and supplements to the Official Code of Georgia Annotated pursuant to this chapter: legislation enacted at the same session of the General Assembly and amending the same statutory provision shall be considered in pari materia, and full effect shall be given to each if that is possible; ...
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/In+pari+materia
[Latin, Upon the same subject.] A designation applied to statutes or general laws that were enacted at different times but pertain to the same subject or object.

Statutes in pari materia must be interpreted in light of each other since they have a common purpose for comparable events or items.

IN PARI MATERIA. Upon the same matter or subject. Statutes in pari materia are to be construed together.
OCGA 28-9-5 said:
Acts enacted during the same session shall be treated as conflicting with each other only to the extent that they cannot be given effect simultaneously; in the event of such a conflict, the latest enactment, as determined by the order in which bills became law with or without the approval of the Governor, shall control to the extent of the conflict unless the latest enactment contains a provision expressly ceding control in such an event; ...
(Reading very carefully)...
OCGA 28-9-5 said:
... and language carried forward unchanged in one amendatory Act shall not be read as conflicting with changed language contained in another Act passed during the same session.
So my opinion is that the Code Revision Commission is in direct violation of OCGA 28-9-2, and that they have failed in the execution of their commission, and further that with HB 90 they are presently engaged in an attempt to legitimize and cover up their willful usurpation of legislative power in violation of the Georgia Constitution.
 

·
GeePeeDoHolic
Joined
·
6,399 Posts
Ah, now this is the part I could not find. My search-fu was off that day.

§ 28-9-5.(a) Any change or correction made by the Code Revision Commission pursuant to its authority under this subsection shall not become the law of the State of Georgia if such change or correction results in an alteration of the meaning, sense, or effect of the Acts and resolutions of the General Assembly, even though such change or correction may have been included in a pocket part, supplement, or revised volume of the Official Code of Georgia Annotated which has been reenacted by a bill authorized by subsection (c) of this Code section.
I read that to mean that SB90 HB90 cannot alter the meaning or effect of the Acts.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,038 Posts
Ah, now this is the part I could not find. My search-fu was off that day.

I read that to mean that SB90 cannot alter the meaning or effect of the Acts.
doesn't that also mean that the way in which HB 826 was codified, no matter the wording, does not change what HB 826 says is now lawful...
 

·
Cross-drawer
Joined
·
7,068 Posts
§ 28-9-5.(a) Any change or correction made by the Code Revision Commission pursuant to its authority under this subsection shall not become the law of the State of Georgia if such change or correction results in an alteration of the meaning, sense, or effect of the Acts and resolutions of the General Assembly, even though such change or correction may have been included in a pocket part, supplement, or revised volume of the Official Code of Georgia Annotated which has been reenacted by a bill authorized by subsection (c) of this Code section does not match the exact wording of the bill that initiated the revision.
There. That looks much better to me. By the way, I am wearing a robe right now.
 

·
GeePeeDoHolic
Joined
·
6,399 Posts
There. That looks much better to me. By the way, I am wearing a robe right now.
That would mean they couldn't correct spellings, references, numbers, etc.

The code section provides that the commission can do 15 things in the process of making the Annotated Code "without altering the sense, meaning, or effect of such Acts and resolutions." Things such as correct spelling, change capitalization for uniformity, correct typographical errors, substitute the proper number for phrases that say "this section," change cross-references to agree, etc. etc.

Basically, they can do grammatical things. They cannot do semantic things.
 

·
GeePeeDoHolic
Joined
·
6,399 Posts
doesn't that also mean that the way in which HB 826 was codified, no matter the wording, does not change what HB 826 says is now lawful...
I think so. This would be what jrm and mp mean when they say the acts are the law; the code is not the law.
 
7

·
Guest
Joined
·
0 Posts
2013 SB340 says in part the following. Should this language not have clearly directed the code commission to consider and incorporate both bills (HB60 and 826)and conclude that they do in fact not conflict? Especially look at lines 260-262 of SB340.

253
Official Code of Georgia Annotated pursuant to this chapter: legislation enacted at the
254
same session of the General Assembly and amending the same statutory provision shall be
255
considered in pari materia, and full effect shall be given to each if that is possible; Acts
256
enacted during the same session shall be treated as conflicting with each other only to the
257
extent that they cannot be given effect simultaneously; in the event of such a conflict, the
258
latest enactment, as determined by the order in
which bills became law with or without the
259
approval of the Governor, shall control to the extent of the conflict unless the latest
260
enactment contains a provision expressly ceding control in such an event; and language
261
carried forward unchanged in one amendatory Act shall not be read as conflicting with
262
changed language contained in another Act passed during the same session.
"
; and
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
8,460 Posts
2013 SB340 says in part the following. Should this language not have clearly directed the code commission to consider and incorporate both bills (HB60 and 826)and conclude that they do in fact not conflict? Especially look at lines 260-262 of SB340.

253
Official Code of Georgia Annotated pursuant to this chapter: legislation enacted at the
254
same session of the General Assembly and amending the same statutory provision shall be
255
considered in pari materia, and full effect shall be given to each if that is possible; Acts
256
enacted during the same session shall be treated as conflicting with each other only to the
257
extent that they cannot be given effect simultaneously; in the event of such a conflict, the
258
latest enactment, as determined by the order in
which bills became law with or without the
259
approval of the Governor, shall control to the extent of the conflict unless the latest
260
enactment contains a provision expressly ceding control in such an event; and language
261
carried forward unchanged in one amendatory Act shall not be read as conflicting with
262
changed language contained in another Act passed during the same session.
"
; and
I thought that too, but they didn't look that far. If I were to guess, I would say the Code Revision Commission would say that some part of 16-11-127.1 conflicted with the 2 bills and HB60's version won. Instead of integrating what did not conflict, they simply discarded the entire version of 16-11-127.1 contained in HB 826.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,187 Posts
Discussion Starter #59
On the House floor now
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,187 Posts
Discussion Starter #60
the committee substitute for this bill was passed 168 to 0 in the House
 
41 - 60 of 93 Posts
Top