The Court of NO JURISDICTION

[palani]

Here it is .. right out of Iowa code


602.6104 Judicial officers.
1. The jurisdiction of the Iowa district court shall be exercised by district judges, district associate judges, associate juvenile judges, associate probate judges, and magistrates .
2. Judicial officers of the district court shall not sit together in the trial of causes nor upon the hearings of motions for new trials. They may hold court in the same county at the same time.



Now if this isn't a bunch of nonsense. The jurisdiction of the Iowa district court may only be exercised by a MULTIPLE number of judges (see where only the plural is referenced?) in the first paragraph and in the second paragraph they go on to specify that judicial officers shall not sit together. Well if they only exercise the jurisdiction together and yet they are prohibited from being seated together then wouldn't the conclusion be that the jurisdiction of the Iowa district court WILL NEVER BE EXERCISED?

[palani]

The OP requires you have a least a modicum of discrimination when discussing the English language. Especially when you get into the legal world words may take on unusual meanings (word construction). A bunch of 2x4s when used in an architectural fashion might become an outhouse or they might become a religious shrine. The same with words. Together they construct something that is pure poetry to read or alternatively they become a scrap of paper Ponce would prefer to use for his person hygiene.

Here is a brough ha ha created when the issue of an English statute using the word counties plurally when each county affected by the legislation should have been so named


This, though it might seeme to be warranted (after 18.E.3) upon the Construction of the word Counties, used plurally in the Statute, 18.Ed.3.Stat.2.ca.2 yet was it much contrarie to the mea-ning

21 CAP 4

Ning of the former lawes (made 1.E.3.cap.15 & 3.4.E.3.cap2) where the same word is read (Everie Countie) in the Singular number. And therefore the Parliament (34.E.3.ca.I) restored ___ proper sense of these lawes, saying: In everie Countie of England there shall be assigned for the safe keeping of the Peace, one Lord, and with him, 3. or 4. of the mightiest men in that countie. And afterward it addeth, They shall have power to heare & determine (at the kings suit) al maner of Felonies & trespasses, done in the same County.

Modern legislatures seem to have considered this problem and many have come up with some form of code that states "when we are talking of plurals we also mean singulars and vice versa" but this cop out would not fly 500 years ago in England and there is no reason to consider this a solution now.

[palani]

The three branches of government (executive, legislative and judicial) are supposed to be independent of each other. How can the legislature dictate to the judicial how they do their job? Isn't this a violation of the separation of powers? Also, isn't this part and parcel of a bill of attainder or a bill of pains and punishment?