Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

exarkann t1_j2d219j wrote

Why are laws from pre-statehood even valid to begin with?

496

[deleted] t1_j2dg6ql wrote

There's a definite logic. When a state becomes a state you wouldn't want scrap all the laws on the books, then you just need to waste time re-legislating every single law. Surely it's easier to keep all the laws and deal with any that are struck down as they arise. And, as we see in this case, subsequent laws can take precedence over the old laws in cases where there appears to be disagreement.

The issue isn't whether such laws should be valid, but the intent of those who turn to such laws to try to impose their will when they know laws such as these contradict the spirit and/or the letter of current legislation.

292

NotRoryWilliams t1_j2f4s8r wrote

This is the correct answer. And if I recall from law school, the only state that did otherwise was Louisiana and most legal scholars note that the state is kind of an aberration from the rest of the country based on its Napoleonic roots. Napoleon was kind of a weird bureaucratic dictator and liked all laws to be explicitly spelled out in writing; I believe (though I don’t know because I haven’t really researched it) that his code basically disposed with “common law” altogether.

The rest of the US is based on the English common law tradition, where “the law” is a mix of statutes and court precedents. Most states have passed new statutes to cover most situations but still depend on case law to flesh out ambiguities in the statutes, which is basically why courts require trained specialists as lawyers and judges.

41

demarr t1_j2fugps wrote

>trained specialists as lawyers and judges

You be surprised how this isn't a thing in a lot smaller towns and county in the states. Alot of places don't require much to be a judge, some get appointed, some get voted in.

14

Broad_Success_4703 t1_j2daov8 wrote

Probably a clause allowing laws prior to continue

28

[deleted] t1_j2dm5bl wrote

[removed]

11

Logistocrate t1_j2dopm7 wrote

My guess is a lack of political will to do so. It's hard enough to get new political agendas passed in some cases without the added burden of trying to introduce something to take care of a law that is currently unenforceable, and would also appear to be unenforceable post removal of protection from the consequences of that law.

My second guess, and it could be mixed with my first, is that unless you have a really solid party majority you could be inviting a voter response for tackling a wedge issue and it might not be perceived as worth it if the law is unenforceable anyway.

34

shewy92 t1_j2dvvtr wrote

Other stuff to worry about than old laws that no one enforced. Like how in PA it's illegal to sing in the bathtub

20

LittleGreenSoldier t1_j2e9zir wrote

I love the old laws that are now completely bonkers because the circumstances that called for them no longer exist.

In some places it is illegal to lie under a public walkway. They made those laws in the days of wooden sidewalks, where you could lie underneath and peek through gaps in the boards to look up ladies skirts.

20

Ludwigofthepotatoppl t1_j2ea4xo wrote

They tend to revisit old laws as they come up. Times and opinions change, someone charged asks “wait, isn’t this law bullshit?” and then it’s time to look things over. ‘If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it’ is the general attitude, but with these old laws you don’t always know shit’s broke until someone’s inconvenienced.

4

NotRoryWilliams t1_j2f53ok wrote

Because there’s no reason to, especially something like an ancient law that was technically invalidated by a Supreme Court case. There are invalid laws on the books basically everywhere, lots of states and many more counties and municipalities, because there’s no real benefit to legislatively repealing or rewriting a law that’s been invalidated by a court, except to make less (billable) work for lawyers. Since most legislators are also lawyers, why would they put in extra work themselves that serves no purpose but to make it harder for their colleagues to earn a living?

0

genericnewlurker t1_j2e8fh6 wrote

The same reason that English Common Laws, such as the Castle Doctrine, are still in American Law. When Arizona was ratified and joined the Union, they didn't scrap everything and start over, the laws of the territory became the laws of the newly formed state. That bedrock of previously established laws were later added to or amended as time passed. Most laws have been updated for the modern times, like in this case, but this prosecutor found an old relic to try and promote his political views despite the legislature updating the law.

21

IdealDesperate2732 t1_j2e5wmd wrote

Continuity of authority of government.

The state government is only legitimate because it stems from the pre-state government which was set up by the federal government. Apparently there is a transitive property of governmental authority.

10

Goddamnpassword t1_j2et0qs wrote

The entire purpose of the territory to state path is to create the structures and laws to support self governance and joining the union. Territories are judge on the laws they passed and how they’ve chosen to administer their territory prior to joining. Arizona for example had to get rid of a law allowing for the recall of all judges by popular vote to be admitted to the union and Utah had to forswear polygamy.

2

bigd10199501 t1_j2e3a4p wrote

Because the constitution allows for states to have their own laws that differ from federal law.

−18

IdealDesperate2732 t1_j2e5q7s wrote

ok, but that doesn't answer the question because this is before they're a state.

16

SingleAlmond t1_j2eg8ek wrote

AZ was the last state in the lower 48. It didn't become a state until 1912 iirc. Settlers were living there for 100s of years, you cant just erase all those laws and start fresh

−9

bigd10199501 t1_j2e603a wrote

Because the state had its own constitution of laws and they are grandfathered in. I’m not sure the process but I’m sure there has to be some compromise on some laws so they are more “conducive” to the federal level.

−10