That's the gist of an answer from legislative lawyers to the writ filed by troubled Assemblyman Steven Brooks at the state Supreme Court.
The highlights, with page numbers of the 45-page document, which is attached here:
I.Standard of review. .....................................................................................10
II.Because the Assembly seated the Petitioner and did not exclude him from his legislative seat for failing to meet the qualifications of his office, the decision in Powell v. McCormack, 395 U.S. 486 (1969), is not controlling or helpful to the Petitioner in this case. ...............................................................14
III.When the Assembly adopted A.R. 5 and approved and ratified the Select Committee’s rules and the Chair’s order, the rules and order became the actions of the Assembly, and the Assembly’s ratification dates back to the time when those actions were initially taken.................................................17
A. The Assembly had the authority to take preventative and disciplinary action against the Petitioner based on its inherent power of self-protection.................................................................................................20
B. The Assembly had the authority to take preventative and disciplinary action against the Petitioner based on its express power to determine the rules of its proceedings and punish its members for disorderly conduct under Article 4, §6. ...........................................................24
iIV. Because the Assembly’s decision to take preventative and disciplinary action against the Petitioner is a function constitutionally committed to the Assembly which falls within its sole province and discretion under Article 4, §6, the Assembly’s decision is conclusive, and it presents a nonjusticiable political question that should not be subject to judicial review. .......................................................................................................26
V. Even if the Assembly’s decision is subject to judicial review, the Assembly did not manifestly abuse its discretion or act arbitrarily or capriciously when it decided to take preventative and disciplinary action against the Petitioner. ............................................................................................30
VI.Because the Petitioner sued only the Legislature rather than suing the Assembly, the Petitioner sued the wrong party............................................32
That's the gist of an answer from legislative lawyers to the writ filed by troubled Assemblyman Steven Brooks at the state Supreme Court.
The highlights, with page numbers of the 45-page document, which is attached here:
I. Standard of review. .....................................................................................10
II. Because the Assembly seated the Petitioner and did not exclude him from his legislative seat for failing to meet the qualifications of his office, the decision in Powell v. McCormack, 395 U.S. 486 (1969), is not controlling or helpful to the Petitioner in this case. ...............................................................14
III. When the Assembly adopted A.R. 5 and approved and ratified the Select Committee’s rules and the Chair’s order, the rules and order became the actions of the Assembly, and the Assembly’s ratification dates back to the time when those actions were initially taken.................................................17
A. The Assembly had the authority to take preventative and disciplinary action against the Petitioner based on its inherent power of self-protection.................................................................................................20
B. The Assembly had the authority to take preventative and disciplinary action against the Petitioner based on its express power to determine the rules of its proceedings and punish its members for disorderly conduct under Article 4, §6. ...........................................................24
iIV. Because the Assembly’s decision to take preventative and disciplinary action against the Petitioner is a function constitutionally committed to the Assembly which falls within its sole province and discretion under Article 4, §6, the Assembly’s decision is conclusive, and it presents a nonjusticiable political question that should not be subject to judicial review. .......................................................................................................26
V. Even if the Assembly’s decision is subject to judicial review, the Assembly did not manifestly abuse its discretion or act arbitrarily or capriciously when it decided to take preventative and disciplinary action against the Petitioner. ............................................................................................30
VI. Because the Petitioner sued only the Legislature rather than suing the Assembly, the Petitioner sued the wrong party............................................32
Comments: