Deep, you still haven't answered my first question, which was:
LashL said:
What makes you think that any subpoena power that can be granted pursuant to a NYC local law would have any force or effect upon anyone located anywhere other than in NYC?
Which I asked again here:
LashL said:
There are other problems with the petition, of course, not least of which are jurisdictional and constitutional problems that will preclude the proposed group from obtaining any subpoena power whatsoever, but I first want to know, hypothetically speaking, what reason you have to believe that any subpoena power conferred by the City Council of NYC would have any force or effect on anyone outside of NYC.
And you still didn't answer.
Then, I asked you:
And when you're done with that one, deep, here's another more fundamental question for you: what makes you think that the City Council of NYC has the power or authority to grant subpoena-issuing powers to a group such as the commission proposed in the petition?
And you did answer that, superficially, by saying,
deep44 said:
Well, I checked the NYC City Charter (which a referendum would amend), and noticed that various other groups were granted subpoena power. That's why.
But that does not address the whole question, which necessarily includes the latter part of it,
"to a group such as the commission proposed in the petition"? The italicized part is the most important part of the question.
If you've read the City Charter and "noticed that various other groups were granted subpoena power", why is it that you have not made any observations or drawn any conclusions about the limited authority that City Council has to grant subpoena powers, the nature of the entities to whom City Council can grant same, and the very limited nature of those subpoena powers once granted to such entities?
Did you not notice, while you were reading the City Charter, that the entities upon whom the City's limited authority to grant subpoena power has been exercised, are very few, and did you not notice that those entities are very specific to NYC's geographical boundaries, and do not (and can not) reach beyond same? Did you not notice that nearly all of those entities are specifically related to oversight of the workings of NYC departments and agencies? (And the couple that are not specifically related to oversight of NYC departments and agencies exclusively are closely related: i.e., an environmental control board and humans rights commission)
A City Council cannot delegate to others authority which it does not have itself. That is the jist of the jurisdictional problems with the petition, in my view. It seeks to obtain from City Council authority above and beyond that which City Council has itself. It seeks to intrude upon spheres of law and spheres of authority beyond the City, and even beyond the state, for that matter. The City does not have the right or the authority to pass a law that would ostensibly put into the hands of a few people (not even necessarily NYC residents according to the petition) powers that are vested in state and federal agencies and governed by state and federal statutes (employment, criminal, and other).
And you still haven't answered this question, either:
LashL said:
In other words, upon what specific provisions of the governing legislation do the petition-drafters rely in order to bring the requested relief within the purview of City Council's limited authority to adopt a local law?
Do you know the answer to that question? If not, just say so, but do not just avoid the question. Better yet, if you don't know the answer, why don't you seek the answer from the drafters since you are supporting the petition?
Why are you asking me legal questions?
I am not asking you legal questions. I asked you why you think X, and what reason you have to believe Y, based on your posts. Asking why you think X and what reason you have to believe Y are not legal questions. I was getting the impression that perhaps you were just parroting the truther petition site without having any genuine understanding of what you were parroting, so I asked you those two direct questions.
You're a lawyer, right? Why don't you just share your professional opinion with us?
As always, any and all opinions that I write on the forum are personal opinions, and not legal advice, etc. etc.; insert the standard but necessary disclaimer here.
I find that it is more effective in the interests of both learning and educating, and in the interests of debate, to explore the rationale behind someone's take on a legal issue that they are promulgating, and to explore what they know or understand about the fundamental premises of law and the underpinnings of statutory interpretation, rather than just saying, "I think you're wrong and here's why." I think it is much more useful to try to understand why you think the law means what you think it means, compare it to what I think the law means, and go from there. This is a
discussion forum, after all, not a lecture hall.
For instance, if you were able to point me to the specific provisions of the relevant legislation upon which the petition-drafters rely in order to bring the requested relief within the purview of City Council's authority, that would be something for me to go and look at, consider, interpret, and then we could engage in a much more specific and meaningful discussion about it. You know, an exchange of thoughts, ideas, interpretations, and conclusions backed up by cited authorities, precedents, and all that good stuff. But if you don't even know what provisions of relevant legislation the petition is relying upon, then perhaps you should reconsider putting blind faith in it and perhaps you should reconsider simply parroting what you read on the petition site.
