Public opinion does not decide the issue of "constitutionality."

Congress & legislatures pass laws that are later found to be unconstitutional and and are struck down by appeals/Supreme Courts.

Even initiative/propositions put on the ballot and then passed by voters/the people are often found by Courts to be unconstitutional. The question is not whether the majority of citizens rule, the question is whether the initiative is constitutional or is it void because it doesn't measure up to constitutional standards/requirements.

So, it really doesn't matter what support the measure/ordinance has from the citizenry… 100% of Arcatans could favor the ordinance, but if unconstitutional..
the law is void and struck down. It fails.

Especially, going after people for merely carrying a sign…troubling, because that is one of the bedrock rights that make us a so-called 'free country."

Some city official says that the ordinance is based upon what has already been declared constitutional in other towns/cities. Please let us know when/Where a appeals court or the Supreme Court/Calif. or the U.S. Supreme Court has agreed with laws prohibiting carrying signs. I think even George Carlin, if he was still alive, could carry a sign using the language he was famous for.

There are over 10,000 towns, cities, hamlets, etc..in this country, and I can guarantee you that in hundreds of those burgs, every single day, people stand in front of courthouses, city halls, and on the streets with signs.

Reading about this issue, from Arcata of all places, I still wonder if you are going the way of Mississippi and Alabama in the 1960's. Like I said in a previous comment, "I wonder who the next Bull Connor is going to be…and if his ghost will arise in Arcata." Judging from the comments, and the actions of the city…it would not surprise me to see "someone" stand up to be that next Bull Connor."

George Shieman Eureka/SanFrancisco gshieman@aol.com.

Public opinion does not decide the issue of "constitutionality."

Congress & legislatures pass laws that are later found to be unconstitutional and and are struck down by appeals/Supreme Courts.

Even initiative/propositions put on the ballot and then passed by voters/the people are often found by Courts to be unconstitutional. The question is not whether the majority of citizens rule, the question is whether the initiative is constitutional or is it void because it doesn't measure up to constitutional standards/requirements.

So, it really doesn't matter what support the measure/ordinance has from the citizenry… 100% of Arcatans could favor the ordinance, but if unconstitutional..
the law is void and struck down. It fails.

Especially, going after people for merely carrying a sign…troubling, because that is one of the bedrock rights that make us a so-called 'free country."

Some city official says that the ordinance is based upon what has already been declared constitutional in other towns/cities. Please let us know when/Where a appeals court or the Supreme Court/Calif. or the U.S. Supreme Court has agreed with laws prohibiting carrying signs. I think even George Carlin, if he was still alive, could carry a sign using the language he was famous for.

There are over 10,000 towns, cities, hamlets, etc..in this country, and I can guarantee you that in hundreds of those burgs, every single day, people stand in front of courthouses, city halls, and on the streets with signs.

Reading about this issue, from Arcata of all places, I still wonder if you are going the way of Mississippi and Alabama in the 1960's. Like I said in a previous comment, "I wonder who the next Bull Connor is going to be…and if his ghost will arise in Arcata." Judging from the comments, and the actions of the city…it would not surprise me to see "someone" stand up to be that next Bull Connor."

George Shieman Eureka/SanFrancisco gshieman@aol.com.

Public opinion does not decide the issue of "constitutionality."

Congress & legislatures pass laws that are later found to be unconstitutional and and are struck down by appeals/Supreme Courts.

Even initiative/propositions put on the ballot and then passed by voters/the people are often found by Courts to be unconstitutional. The question is not whether the majority of citizens rule, the question is whether the initiative is constitutional or is it void because it doesn't measure up to constitutional standards/requirements.

So, it really doesn't matter what support the measure/ordinance has from the citizenry… 100% of Arcatans could favor the ordinance, but if unconstitutional..
the law is void and struck down. It fails.

Especially, going after people for merely carrying a sign…troubling, because that is one of the bedrock rights that make us a so-called 'free country."

Some city official says that the ordinance is based upon what has already been declared constitutional in other towns/cities. Please let us know when/Where a appeals court or the Supreme Court/Calif. or the U.S. Supreme Court has agreed with laws prohibiting carrying signs. I think even George Carlin, if he was still alive, could carry a sign using the language he was famous for.

There are over 10,000 towns, cities, hamlets, etc..in this country, and I can guarantee you that in hundreds of those burgs, every single day, people stand in front of courthouses, city halls, and on the streets with signs.

Reading about this issue, from Arcata of all places, I still wonder if you are going the way of Mississippi and Alabama in the 1960's. Like I said in a previous comment, "I wonder who the next Bull Connor is going to be…and if his ghost will arise in Arcata." Judging from the comments, and the actions of the city…it would not surprise me to see "someone" stand up to be that next Bull Connor."

George Shieman Eureka/SanFrancisco gshieman@aol.com.

PS
Calling it “land use” does not change the fact that it limits our rights as patients.

PPS

Kelly Decision: Three Appeals courts ruled the quantity limits passed by the legislature in SB420 were unconstitutional .Chris Conrad testified at Kelly’s original Long Beach trial and is cited. The Supreme Court held that the quantities are legal as a safe harbor for state ID cardholders but are unconstitutional as a limit on a qualified patient’s defense in court. It also held that the state ID card system is constitutional and that collectives operating under Health and Safety Code 11362.775 are constitutionally protected throughout the state. Click here to view as a PDF (320k) Chris Conrad’s cannabis expert testimony cited multiple times.

Kelly Appeals Court Decision. Chris Conrad testified at the original Long Beach trial and is cited. Ruling that was reviewed by the Supreme Court (Click here to view as a PDF (144k). Christopher Conrad testimony, mention 1. Christopher Conrad testimony, mention 2.

Phomphakdy Appeals Court Decision: Chris Conrad testified at the original Sacramento trial and is cited. Held that Quantities listed in SB 420, HS 11362.77(a) are unconstitutional to the extent that they are taken as limits affecting patients’ rights or legal defense. Chris Conrad’s testimony, mention 1 . Chris Conrad’s testimony, mention 2.

Archer Appeals Court Decision. Chris Conrad testified at the original San Diego trial. SB 420 quantity limits held unconstitutional by Appeals Court.

Just because the “limits” are on “garden size” and “lighting wattage”, does not mean that it is legal, it is still an unconstitutional limitation placed on patients by our city council.