January 27, 200619 yr AHHH! Yes, you do have the right to persue life, liberty and happiness. 1. By not taking the job, 2. By working to make your city of employment the best place to live with liberty and happiness. I don't know why you can't find that in any city in America. The attitudes that have been presented against the rule just doesn't do it for me and makes gives me even less faith that those outside the city limits will care one ounce about whats going on in the city. Sometimes you Consitution beaters can get as bad as the ACLU.
January 27, 200619 yr Liberty is a word that many people like to thrown around. Using it to rationalize a personal agenda can distort the meaning given to it by the constitution. KTM, You are throwing around a bunch of cliches. Also, when did the ACLU and child molesters come into play? The right to pursue life, liberty and happiness is not absolute. Such an interpretation was never intended by the Framers. If it were, I would be exercising my right to cheat on my taxes or steal my neighbor's car.
January 27, 200619 yr the residents of the city voted overwhelming for these restrictions. unless clearly arbitrary or capricious, i think that their wishes should be upheld. if it ends up meaning less qualified people working jobs for the city, then the residents would be free again to express their desires at that time.
January 27, 200619 yr The ACLU came into play because there is case after case where they defend the rights of the worst kind of criminal (IMO- child molesters) stating "they have a Constitutional right" to live where they choose-- and they win the cases. Here is what I fully understand 1) Did the employees know what they were getting into?--Yes. 2) Were they forced to take the job?--No 3) Are there other jobs out there?--Yes. 4) Are there cities to work for who do not have residency requirement?--Yes. 5) Can an employee quit thier residency requiring job and find employment elsewhere?--Yes. My question still has absolutely nothing to do with that. My question is this-- Is a rule to force anyone to live in a certian area constitutional? Or if you don't like that word, does this rule follow the basic guidlines of American philosophy? I happen to think the rule itself is un-American.
January 27, 200619 yr You certainly do have the right to choose where you want to live, but that choice is made as a part of your choice of where to work. The residency rule is constitutional. Numerous courts have upheld it as such. Probably because of your points 1-5. If someone wants to pursue happiness and liberty, that's wonderful, but there are always tradeoffs in that pursuit. City employment is relatively well-paid and secure work with good benefits provided by the taxpayers of that municipality. They are the real bosses, and they have the right to set conditions of employment. One of the conditions that they set was that they want the people that they pay to maintain and keep safe their neighborhoods to live in those same neighborhoods.
January 27, 200619 yr does this rule follow the basic guidlines of American philosophy? I happen to think the rule itself is un-American. KTM, The basic tenet of "American philosophy" is the democratic process. These rules were voted in by a majority of the Cleveland's citizens. It is very questionable for the state legislature to disrespect the election process. Most likely, the state legislature's actions will prove to be unconstituional. Ohio is a home-rule state, which grants the power of local self-government. Actions by the state legislature that infringe on his right are unconstitutional. However, I feel that your argument is based on emotion rather than established law. Taken to the extreme, your argument would take away the employer's right to establish job qualifications. That is a very slippery slope. Is that really what you are advocating?
January 27, 200619 yr No matter what point A brings up, B has a rebuttle. Whatever point B brings up, A has a rebuttle. These employees are attempting to better thier working conditions-- residency is a condition of employment. I assume every post comes from a working individual. I wonder how many of you have attempted to better your woking conditions---- faster computure, better uniforms, better wage, more powerful equiptment, bigger office, whatever it may be. That's all these folks are doing. Some folks are against residency lifting, but I would be willing to bet they have had conversations regarding improving thier working conditions and worked to achieve those changes. If not,,,, Please post an application for your job because I would love to work where nothing ever needs to be changed due to a perfect work enviornment.-------And I'm not joking, sign me up.
January 28, 200619 yr ^Yes, of course there is always going to be an opposing argument, there are always going to be different views, thats a big part of America. Like I said, we don't have to agree, not that I mind debating it out, you just may come up with a point so shocking and revolutionary, that I change my stance. I understand your point about workers wanting more perks/better conditions, and I want to make sure you know we arn't against that desire or even people arguing the residency rule. We just think cities should be able to require residency, thats it.
January 28, 200619 yr This is not the kind of decision that should be made at the state level. Blufton (OH), for example, is not in the same position as Cleveland or Dayton. The taxpayers of each city should be allowed to choose whether they want the public servants whose salary they pay to have to live with them inside the city limits.
January 28, 200619 yr Well there will be no debate when I say this--- Bob Taft did sign the bill (yesterday). In 89 days from today, it will be law. Now,,,,, we'll see what happens in court. Gentlemen,,,,,,,,,,,, start your engines!!!!!!!!!
January 28, 200619 yr This issue has become biggest in both Dayton and Toledo, and the mayors of these cities are trying to get mayors of other large cities in the state on board to try to get it overturned. Toledo Mayor Carty Finkbeiner had this to say: "I'm disappointed in Governor Taft. I spoke to him personally about the importance of cities keeping their government employees living in urban centers. "It keeps a policeman in a Toledo neighborhood, a fireman in another Toledo neighborhood, and an economic specialist in another neighborhood. In each neighborhood, those employees make important contributions in improving the quality of life in those neighborhoods. "Once they move out, and I don't think all of them will, we will lose population and we will lose the leadership skills of those city employees who would now become contributors to an improved quality of life somewhere outside Toledo." Here's the full story in which it appeared: http://www.toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060128/NEWS09/601280411/-1/RSS
January 30, 200619 yr Youngstown Mayor Jay Williams has joined in too: "In my mind, they abandoned the cities and sent a very bad message. It was a slap in the face." "I would like to initiate court action prior to that 90 days. I'm not expecting a mass or immediate exodus, but a slow, painful death could be as detrimental. I'm going to advise city employees to not act prematurely." http://www.vindy.com/content/local_regional/294130186707335.php
January 31, 200619 yr Meanwhile, Cleveland's service workers plan a lawsuit if Mayor Jackson fires any of them for violating the residency law: Cleveland Mayor Frank Jackson warned all city workers in a Jan. 18 letter that he believes that the state action is unconstitutional. He threatened to fire any worker who moves outside the city limits. "We're a little shocked that 18 days after [Jackson] took the oath of office and swore to uphold the laws and the Constitution of the state of Ohio, he's now saying he is going to violate them," said Joe Diemert, lawyer for Local 93 of the International Association of Firefighters. At least two other unions, representing rank-and-file police and the sergeants and lieutenants who supervise them, will join the suit, Diemert said. http://www.cleveland.com/news/plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/cuyahoga/1138613712262390.xml&coll=2
February 10, 200619 yr The city sanitation workers have filed a similar suit to force the mayor to abide by the new state law.
April 17, 200619 yr I am curious as to see what happens in two weeks....thats's when the law goes into affect. I wonder if the city leaders from around the state have come together for one appeal, or if each city is going to file. This should be interesting.
April 17, 200619 yr The statewide prohibition on residency restrictions is ridiculous and disgustingly anti-city. It is perfectly reasonable for the taxpayers of a city to expect the employees whose salaries they pay to live alongside them. The analogy that a company can't dictate where an employee lives fails completely. Why? Nobody in a certain area is required to chip in to pay a company's employees, like city residents are for city employees. If city workers don't like it, they can find a job in the private sector. Nobody is being forced to do anything here. To argue that city workers are being forced to live somewhere they don't want to assumes that they have a fundamental right to their job, which of course they do not.
April 18, 200619 yr Sticky issue here. i dont know whether to keep the residency rule or not Let us know when you make your decision. ;)
April 18, 200619 yr I know some city workers that have put there homes on the market. I wonder how many have sold their homes already and move in a apartment, if that.
April 18, 200619 yr Don't be so sure everyone is going to flee....I AM a city employee, I have no plans on leaving anytime soon, and I know PLENTY of others that feel the same. A lot of people grew up in certain areas of the city (ie West Park) and they plan to stay. Also, don't think that those that would like to leave are going to seel a $200,000 house for $150,000 just to get out. If it does stand up in court, I don't think it will have the doomsday effect that some fear. I KNOW some of you ou there will disagree and will state your opinions..and that is fine. I guess I wish they could have come up with some sort of agreement, like 10 year requirement, then let you choose. That way there will always be an influx of people, but yet let you make a choice at one point. Like I stated earlier, I plan on staying no matter what...but I WOULD like the choice to keep and maybe live in the family home I grew up in someday.
April 19, 200619 yr I'm also a City employee and I will definately not leave if this is overturned. My cop neighbors are echoing the same sentiment. As JDD941 said -nobody will sell a 200K house for 150K- they'll be like all other capitalizing Americans and sell the house for more than 200K, this leads to the County assessing a higher taxable value, which then leads to more $$ in property taxes- so financially will this have a negative impact on the City's finances if overturned- nope. I'm against this for a couple of reasons, but most impotrantly it comes down to home rule- the State should not have any say on what the citizens of Cleveland voted for in 1982.
April 19, 200619 yr I apologize in advance as I only read page 3 of posts-so I may repeat someones elses opinion. I think city workers should live in city. Am I biased? maybe, I live in the city. I work for the county and greatly resent people that trash Cuyahoga Cty or Cleveland, then put their grubby paw out for a pay check funded by those very people before they crawl home to north ridgeville or such. I want civil servants that love this community enough to live in it. I suspect there could be exceptions. I know someone who got married to someone living in an adjacent county who needs to stay in that community b/c they are an employee of that city. how to make a fair system of "exceptions" could be impossible.
April 29, 200619 yr From the 4/29/06 Toledo Blade: City files challenge to law on residency Ohio measure bars local job stipulations By MARK REITER BLADE STAFF WRITER The city of Toledo filed a lawsuit yesterday in Lucas County Common Pleas Court to overturn a new state law that prohibits local governments from imposing a residency requirement as a condition of employment. The complaint raises a challenge to legislation that Gov. Bob Taft signed on Jan. 27. The law invalidates local ordinances requiring residency for employees. It is scheduled to go into effect Monday - 90 days after it was signed by the governor, said Adam Loukx, senior attorney for the city... http://www.toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060429/NEWS16/604290390/-1/RSS
May 1, 200619 yr From Crain's Cleveland, 5/1/06: Cities sue over residency law change By JAY MILLER 11:01 am, May 1, 2006 The cities of Cleveland and Akron filed lawsuits today contesting the law enacted earlier this year that sought to overrule all municipal residency requirements. Cleveland and Akron filed their suits in Cuyahoga County and Summit County common pleas courts, respectively. Toledo filed a similar suit on April 28... http://www.crainscleveland.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060501/FREE/60501002/1008/rss01&rssfeed=rss01
May 2, 200619 yr From the 5/2/06 Youngstown Vindicator: Youngstown sues Ohio over law ending residency requirements Youngstown's residency rule will be enforced as usual while the law is challenged. By DEBORA SHAULIS VINDICATOR STAFF WRITER YOUNGSTOWN — Mayor Jay Williams has made good on a vow to challenge Ohio's nearly complete abolishment of residency requirements for public employees. The city of Youngstown filed suit against the state Monday in Mahoning County Common Pleas Court, just as the state's new law on residency rules went into effect. The city wants a judge to declare that the new law infringes on the city's home rule powers and violates sections of the Ohio Constitution, making the law change invalid, inapplicable and unenforceable... http://www.vindy.com/content/local_regional/287986556572561.php
May 6, 200619 yr From the 5/6/06 Dayton Daily News: Dayton sues state over residency law The legislation trumps a city charter amendment that requires its workers to live within its borders. By Rob Modic Staff Writer Dayton | The city of Dayton, following the lead of several Ohio municipalities, sued the state Friday over its new law that trumps strict residency requirements for city employees. Senate Bill 82, enacted in January and effective May 1, prohibits political subdivisions from requiring employees to live in the same jurisdiction, although it allows jurisdictions to restrict workers to residences within the same or contiguous counties. Dayton's lawsuit is aimed at protecting the residency requirements embedded in its charter, a right granted by a 1912 amendment to the state's constitution. Rashad Young, interim city manager, said the city's legal engagement is not coordinated with the lawsuits filed by Cleveland, Akron, Toledo and Youngstown. But the city's legal team has been in contact with those cities as strategies have been shared and weighed... http://www.daytondailynews.com/localnews/content/localnews/daily/0506residency.html
May 24, 200619 yr From the 5/23/06 Lima News: City files residency lawsuit By JIM SABIN 419-993-2091 05/23/2006 [email protected] LIMA — Lima officially added its name to the list of cities who believe the state’s new ban on residency clauses is unconstitutional. Lima Law Director Tony Geiger filed a seven-page lawsuit in the Allen County Court of Common Pleas on Monday defending the city’s right to decide for itself what rules and requirements it places on its employees. “The goal is to protect home rule. In this instance it applies to residency,” Geiger said. Lima requires all its incoming employees to either be city residents or move into the city within a year of taking a permanent position, a provision that is included in all of the city’s collective bargaining agreements. The state ban nullifies the law and the agreements, however, at least in terms of deciding an employee’s residence. Geiger argued that the residency requirement is within the city’s right as a charter city defined by the Ohio Constitution. Further, he argued that state residency laws don’t apply to all employees in the state, just those employed by municipalities, and therefore the matter should be a local one to determine. Geiger sought a preliminary and permanent injunction lifting the ban and an order declaring the city’s right to issue such a requirement on its employees. Other cities around the state, including Cleveland, Akron, Youngstown and Toledo, have filed similar lawsuits. Geiger said his is different, and he doesn’t expect any of them to be joined together until they get to the Ohio Supreme Court. http://www.limaohio.com/story.php?IDnum=25974
May 24, 200619 yr Since when does the state legislature listen to what the cities of Ohio want....its not like they are the ones putting them into office or anything :|
July 12, 200618 yr This was such a big issue/debate...but since these appeals were filed, has anything happened? I know up here in Cleveland nothing seems to be happening..what about other parts of the state? Will the courts put all the appeals together and make it one case? Any info?
August 4, 200618 yr From the 8/4/06 Youngstown Vindicator: Mayor gets extra time to mull residency bill The ordinance brings the city into compliance with a state law. By AMANDA GARRETT VINDICATOR TRUMBULL STAFF WARREN — Mayor Michael J. O'Brien says he has until Sept. 13 to veto controversial residency legislation. The mayor, under usual circumstances, would have been required to act within 10 days of a city council item's passage. Council, however, is in recess for the entire month of August. That recess, O'Brien said Friday, means he can wait. The mayor said he consulted with Law Director Gregory Hicks on the issue. According to the Ohio Revised Code and council rules, any legislation passed does not have to be acted upon until council officially comes back to session on Sept. 13... http://www.vindy.com/content/local_regional/286720056516003.php
August 8, 200618 yr I wonder what is ACTUALLY going on right now. Is there anything that has happened with the lawsiuts by the cities? Is this ONE court case with all cities combined, or seperate court cases? If the Cleveland lower court finds in favor of the law, but the Cincinnati court finds opposed to the law....how would the state supreme court rule? Is the law in effect or is there an injunction against it right now? If there is no injunction, can a city legally fire someone for moving? There are lots of unanswered questions that nobody seems to know the answer for. Just curious if anybody actually KNOWS...not opinion.
August 8, 200618 yr Like I said, the city should've provided some sort of incentives so that they'd want to work there, residency requirement or not.
September 15, 200618 yr From the 9/14/06 Warren Tribune Chronicle: Mayor vetoes law on residency By AMY McCULLOUGH Tribune Chronicle WARREN — Mayor Michael J. O’Brien announced the first veto of his administration at Wednesday’s City Council meeting, saying the state’s residency law impedes on local government’s right to home rule and is therefore unconstitutional. In a tie vote, broken by President Robert Marchese, council voted before the August recess to approve a change in residency requirements for city employees. The state recently passed a bill that prohibits municipalities from requiring employees to reside in specific areas as a condition of employment. That constitutionality of the law is being challenged... http://tribune-chronicle.com/articles.asp?articleID=8769
September 23, 200618 yr From the 9/21/06 Warren Tribune Chronicle: Employees face hearing By AMY McCULLOUGH Tribune Chronicle WARREN — Two city employees who challenged the city’s residency law by moving outside the city limits will face a predisciplinary hearing within the next week. Emergency dispatcher Andrew Chovan and Patrolman Michael Currington filed change-of-address forms with the city after a new state law prohibited municipalities from requiring residency as a condition of employment. The hearings, which likely will take place after next week’s City Council meeting, could determine whether the employees will be ordered to move back to the city or fired, Mayor Michael J. O’Brien said. Last week, O’Brien vetoed legislation that would have put the city’s new residency law in compliance with state law that went into effect May 1 that says municipalities cannot prevent employees from moving to bordering counties. Cleveland, Youngstown and other Ohio cities are challenging constitutionality of the law... http://tribune-chronicle.com/articles.asp?articleID=9054
September 23, 200618 yr From the 9/22/06 Youngstown Vindicator: Law violates Constitution, city says The state law violates the Home Rule Amendment, the city contends. By AMANDA GARRETT VINDICATOR TRUMBULL STAFF WARREN — A statewide law that prohibits municipalities from restricting the residency of city employees violates the Ohio Constitution, the city Law Department said Thursday. The city's argument was in response to a lawsuit filed in June in Trumbull County Common Pleas Court by two city employee unions. The lawsuit asks that Warren be prohibited from requiring residency as a condition of employment. Lawyers for the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, Local 74, and the Warren Management Association contended that a state law passed May 1 makes Warren's residency laws invalid. http://www.vindy.com/content/local_regional/299000861662822.php
October 3, 200618 yr From the 9/29/06 Warren Tribune Chronicle: Warren workers face firing By RON SELAK JR. Tribune Chronicle WARREN — Two safety forces workers contesting a city ordinance that requires they live in Warren will learn the fate of their jobs in the next two weeks. Police dispatcher Andrew Chovan and patrolman Michael Currington could be ordered to move back to the city or be fired when Safety-Service Director Doug Franklin renders a decision, which according to their union contracts, must be done in the next five to 10 working days. Predisciplinary hearings for both were held Thursday. http://tribune-chronicle.com/articles.asp?articleID=9351
October 8, 200618 yr From the 10/5/06 Warren Tribune Chronicle: 2 fired over residency By AMY McCULLOUGH Tribune Chronicle WARREN — Patrolman Michael Currington and dispatcher Andrew Chovan will not be back to work today. According to a letter dated Wednesday from Safety Service Director Doug Franklin, the two were discharged for violating the city’s residency ordinance, which requires all city employees to live in Warren as a condition of employment. ‘‘You are discharged from your employment with the City of Warren effective at the end of the work day, Wednesday, October 4, 2006,’’ the letters state. http://tribune-chronicle.com/articles.asp?articleID=9589
October 8, 200618 yr From the 10/6/06 Warren Tribune Chronicle: Warren firings to increase OT By RON SELAK JR. Tribune Chronicle WARREN — By enforcing their residency law and firing an emergency worker, city officials not only are challenging state law but violating one of their regulations that requires a minimum 12 police dispatchers. Wednesday’s firing of dispatcher Andrew Chovan not only drops the number of police dispatchers to less than 12 — a number City Council a decade ago deemed necessary for the ‘‘efficient and effective operation’’ of the city — but increases the likelihood of higher overtime costs, some say. The minimum was set at 10 in 1987 and increased to 12 in 1996. http://tribune-chronicle.com/articles.asp?articleID=9619
October 11, 200618 yr Look for something to become public Dec 13th on the case Cleveland filed against the law.....
November 4, 200618 yr From the 10/21/06 Warren Tribune Chronicle: Fired Warren workers returning to their jobs By RON SELAK JR. Tribune Chronicle WARREN — Two emergency service workers fired because officials said they violated Warren’s residency ordinance — which goes against state law — will be returning to work on Monday. Detective Michael Currington said he received a message Friday from Brian Massucci of the city Human Resources Department telling him he should return to his regular shift at 7 a.m. next week. ‘‘I can’t wait to get back to help protect the people of the City of Warren and help put more bad guys in jail,’’ Currington said on Friday afternoon. http://tribune-chronicle.com/articles.asp?articleID=10204
December 30, 200618 yr From the 12/23/06 Warren Tribune Chronicle: City asks judge to dismiss suit By Tribune Chronicle YOUNGSTOWN — Lawyers for the city have asked a federal judge to dismiss a lawsuit by a former city patrolman who was fired for violating the city residency requirement. Neil Schor of the firm Harrington, Hoppe and Mitchell asked U.S. Northern District Court Judge Peter Economus to dismiss a lawsuit filed in November by former Patrolman Daniel Tickerhoof. Tickerhoof, who joined the force in June 2001, informed city officials he was moving after a state law that took effect in May banned municipalities from making residency a requirement for employment. Tickerhoof moved to Canal Fulton in July. Schor said in papers filed Friday that Tickerhoof’s complaint should be dismissed because it has not yet been determined if a municipality’s enforcement of its residency claim is unconstitutional. Youngstown and several other cities with residency requirements say the new law is unfair because it interferes with the rights of cities to make their own ordinances. He had a hearing Sept. 13 with fire Chief John O’Neill acting as the hearing officer. The lawsuit claims that the outcome — his firing — was predetermined before the hearing. Tickerhoof says in his lawsuit that that made the hearing unfair. The Youngstown Patrolmen’s Association is appealing the firing. Tickerhoof’s lawsuit also claims that other city employees are breaking the residency law but they have not been punished. He is asking for his job back and back pay. He also claims the city violated his rights to due process and privacy. Schor said Tickerhoof’s due process rights were not violated and he also has the chance to appeal his firing through arbitration. http://tribune-chronicle.com/articles.asp?articleID=12620
February 18, 200718 yr Below is an email sent to me: I am not sure who Paul L. Cox is. I got this through the grape vine. ohio residency law upheld All Interested Parties: On February 16th, 2007 the Allen County Common Pleas Court upheld the constitutionality of the Ohio Employee residency law. The Court rejected the City's home rule claim. The Court ruled that the state statute superseded the Lima City local ordinance and the City of Lima could not invalidate the State Statute. Nevertheless we expect an appeal by the City since it has long been our expectation that this issue will have to be settled by the Ohio Supreme Court. Our advice to members seeking to relocate is still the same. Wait until a definitive ruling from the Supreme Court before you move and put your career at risk. Paul L. Cox
February 22, 200718 yr From google: "Paul L. Cox, Chief Counsel, Fraternal Order of Police of Ohio" clevelandskyscrapers.com Cleveland Skyscrapers on Instagram
February 23, 200718 yr 2-23-06 (Cleveland) Residency ruling: Judge Corrigan rules in favor of the little man, city workers. Rules against big business, the city!!!!
February 23, 200718 yr 2-23-06 (Cleveland) Residency ruling: Judge Corrigan rules in favor of the little man, city workers. Rules against big business, the city!!!! Way to skew things, KTM. The entire city of Cleveland (all the little guys) will suffer so that a few can benefit. So why do the rights of a few trump the greater good??
February 23, 200718 yr Not my words. It's a copy and paste: County judge throws out Cleveland residency law Posted by kturner February 23, 2007 15:47PM Cleveland police, firefighters and other city workers should be free to live where they choose and cannot be bound to the city's borders by a residency requirement, a judge ruled this afternoon. Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Judge Peter Corrigan rejected every argument the city put forth to defend its residency requirement against a lawsuit city workers' unions brought last year. Cleveland's lawyers argued, among other things, that a recent state law banning municipal-employment residency requirements infringes on cities' home-rule powers. Corrigan rejected that. He also scoffed at Cleveland's prediction of dire and irreparable harm if the residency requirement would be abolished, saying that if Cleveland wants to keep its employee residents, it should make it worth their while to stay. "This court cannot speculate as to the accuracy of the crystal ball that prognosticates these employees will all abandon their neighborhoods and neighbors in a mass exodus of biblical proportions," Corrigan wrote in a ruling he released at 3:30 p.m. "However, the city may employ its considerable resources to entice its employees to live in the city by any lawful incentives available in the same manner the city uses to attract businesses, tourists and other sources of revenue." Categories: Breaking News
February 23, 200718 yr 3231 wrote: "Way to skew things, KTM. The entire city of Cleveland (all the little guys) will suffer so that a few can benefit. So why do the rights of a few trump the greater good??" Well I, as well as the judge, disagree with you. By the way, why would you suffer if only "a few" (your words) move? Nobody says they HAVE to move. Rather, they still have the choice to live in the city, but like everyone else, they now will have a choice to live elsewhere.
February 23, 200718 yr KTM, Be realistic. They wouldn't sue unless they wanted to move. Put your thinking cap on and imagine the following: the city's most viable neighborhoods lose their lifeblood (the cops, fire fighters, city workers, etc.) Mass exodus from Shaker Square, West Park and Clifton. What happens when no one wants to buy these homes? The neighborhoods go down hill fast. Do you really want that to happen? I'd like to read the judge's opinion and see his explanation of why a state legislative act can trump the state's constitution. That's unconstitutional.
Create an account or sign in to comment