Don't get caught in public doing anything,

[undergroundpanther]

In Vermont.........

Burlington Vt.'s city ordinance allows the immediate and arbitrary banishment of people from public streets with no due process of law and no effective appeal process.
June 18, 2013 |



The story from Vermont, of all places, is breathtakingly simple: the elected city council, in a bi-partisan vote, has decided to keep its law-making process secret, rather than openly address the question of whether a draconian no-trespass law it passed last winter is patently unconstitutional.

That's right, rather than explain why the law it passed is constitutional, the Burlington City Council is hiding behind lawyer-client privilege as if it - the council - were some private corporation rather than a democratically-elected local government.

The ordinance in question, the "Church Street Marketplace District Trespass Authority," passed the City Council unanimously in February 2013. The council vote followed seven public hearings at which some concerns were raised and addressed, but no controversy arose. The ordinance allows the immediate and arbitrary banishment of people from public streets with no due process of law and no effective appeal process.

http://www.alternet.org/civil-liberties/burlington-vt-banish-people

[jberryhill]

1. I don't understand the point of the article

When a legislature, at any level, passes a statute or ordinance, then anyone who is impacted by it can sue to eliminate it on ground of constitutionality.

There is no requirement that the legislature, or any member of it, provide some additional explanation or argument of "why I think this thing is okay."

If a legislator had gotten advise from a lawyer along the way, that is not part of the "law making process". The "law making process" was the introduction, debate and vote on the text of the bill that was made an ordinance.

What I don't get is what is the point of going back to the legislature and saying, "Explain why you thought this was constitutional, and tell us any opinion of counsel you got on the subject." That's not the function of a legislature. The function of a court, on the other hand is to have both sides provide those kinds of arguments.

The key line is:

"That's right, rather than explain why the law it passed is constitutional..." - Since when does any legislative body owe such explanations?

[markpkessinger]

2. That was exactly my reaction . . .

. . . And there is nothing at all requiring a legislative body to release a solicitor's legal memorandum it might have consulted, nor is there anything unusual in their refusal to release such a memorandum. The author could use a civics course.