On September 19, U.S. District Court Edmund A. Sargus, a Clinton appointee, issued an order in Schmitt v Husted, s.d., 2:18cv-966. He put two local initiatives on the November 2018 ballot in Portage County. They reduce penalties for marijuana possession.
Ohio permits county election boards to reject local initiatives, even if they have enough valid signatures, if the board believes the initiative deals with an improper subject. If a board rejects an initiative, there is no direct method for the proponents of the initiative to go to court to get a reversal. This aspect of Ohio election law was held likely to violate federal due process. Therefore, the two initiatives were ordered onto the ballot. Here is the 10-page opinion.
ONE MORE MORON OP — DUE TO MORON SO-CALLED LAWYERS — and a worse MORON *judge*.
Is the subject matter — marijuana possession — within the jurisdiction of a mere county ???
Obviously most/all States have a statewide LAW on the subject of marijuana possession —
Since when can a mere county have an exemption from any such statewide LAW ???
More mystification of *due process* regarding a local govt in a State.
Demo Rep. Are you high right. Now? Mystification of due process? What the f&co? States have to have due process because the constitution requires it. And obviously you have no idea what Home Rule is. So please educate yourself or jump off a bridge either way you can no longer harm people with your ignorance
See the mystification of *due process* by the SCOTUS MORONS from about 1880 to late 1930s
— so-called *substantive due process* regarding social-economic laws.
Too many ignorant legal history MORONS on this list to count.
Are local regimes in Ohio magic independent empires — which can ignore the mere Ohio Const and laws ???
For students –
again — see the book —
Sources of Our Liberties ed. by Richard L. Perry (AM BAR ASSN, 1959)
— legal history of USA Amdts 1-8.
— just before SCOTUS went N-U-T-S in the 1960s.
Basically an elections board can not simply claim a ballot issue doesn’t meet our arbitrary standards and deny it. That’s not due process. Due process involves an impartial judge deciding the merits of both side’s arguments and ruling based on law. That’s all.
Mystification of Separation of Powers jurisdictional stuff via *due process*.
How much legis/exec stuff is obviously NOT reviewable by the courts
— due to such SOP jurisdictional stuff ???
Prime example —
USA Congress declares WAR om 8 Dec 1941 against Japan.
Some court going to review the legality of such act/law
— the second after the law is approved ???
*due process* became mystified in the PREAMBLE to the 1628 Petition of Right Act in England (involving habeas corpus) — Secs. 3-7 of the Act.
— one of the CRISIS laws in the Parliament v Monarch POWER struggles in England in 1603-1689.
See above SOL book.