Saturday, December 03, 2005

Separation of Powers – Part 7

A law is something which must have a moral basis, so that there is an inner compelling force for every citizen to obey.
-- Chaim Weizmann (1874 - 1952)
Legal Arguments:

E. Legislative Improper Delegation of an Authority not Permitted by Art. I § 23, Fla. Const., Right of Privacy

The “Dissolution of Marriage” alimony provisions are written in the prohibited privacy zone of a personal decision relating to marriage. Littlejohn, 786 F.2d rules that divorce is entitled to right of privacy protections.

The legislature lacks authority to legislate such concepts as alimony in the privacy protected zone of Dissolution of Marriage absent a compelling state interest minimally applied. The alimony provisions place an undue burden on Floridians seeking to alter their right of privacy and associational rights related to the personal decision to dissolve their marriage. The legislature compounds the Separation of Powers infringement by improperly delegating unrestricted authority to the judiciary in the “Dissolution of Marriage” alimony provisions, and on top of it, the legislature lacks that authority to exercise such regulation itself, let alone improperly delegate it to the judiciary.


"Constitutional rights must be enforced by courts even against the legislature's powers, and privacy in particular must be enforced even against majoritarian sentiment. Shaktman. Indeed, the overarching purpose of the Florida Declaration of Rights along with its privacy provision is to "protect each individual within our borders from the unjust encroachment of state authority from whatever official source into his or her life." Traylor v. State , 596 So. 2d 957, 963 (Fla. 1992).
“At a fundamental level, the role of the Justices and judges of Florida is to guarantee and enforce the protection afforded by these basic rights. This is at once a judge's greatest calling and heaviest burden. It is an obligation we shoulder by our oath of office, binding ourselves to enforce individual liberty even in the face of public or official opposition. To shield the liberties of the individual from encroachment is uniquely the task of courts. In that sense, we are obliged to give sanctuary against the overreaches of government."
Justice Kogan dissenting in Krischer v McIver, 697 So.2d 97 (Fla. Jul. 17, 1997)
The Right of Privacy attaches to the “Dissolution of Marriage” alimony provisions. No state interest, let alone a compelling state interest minimally applied that in fact furthers the interest exists to rehabilitate the provisions from their presumptively unconstitutional nature. They are null and void ab initio and unenforceable.

The alimony provisions impermissibly conflict with Connor 688 So. 2d and the public policy established therein by impermissibly transforming Floridians who are economically independent before and during marriage into economically dependent Floridians simply because they exercise their fundamental constitutional right of association and privacy to alter their marriage by dissolving it.

The alimony provisions grant unbridled legislative authority to the legislature to create the law and public policy contrary to Art. II § 3 Fla. Const. Furthermore, the legislature via the alimony provision is granting legislative authority to the judiciary which it itself does not have because of Art. I § 23 Fla. Const. Right of Privacy.

* A 'marriage strike' emerges as men decide not to risk loss

* Clarkston judge admits to unethical behavior

* False Allegations

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home