XPost: alt.politics.british, can.legal, misc.legal   
   From: forget@it.com   
      
   Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:   
   > Ken Smith wrote:   
   >   
   >>All they would have to do to make it pass constitutional muster would be to   
   >>create a judicial review provision, which will clarify ambiguities in the   
   >>statute through a series of court decisions.   
   >   
   >>For instance, if the Board wanted to require person X to submit to a psych   
   >>exam, X could challenge it in a state trial court in an expedited   
   >>proceeding.   
   >   
   > And if person X were Ken Smith, the trial court would tell person X that the   
   > Examiners' Board's assessment was correct: submit to the psych exam and quit   
   > whining.  So where would you be then?   
      
      Maybe so, maybe no.  I doubt it, though, as the state constitution in   
   particular insists on more of a showing of fact than "'cuz ve VANTS it!"   
   as a prerequisite to conducting such an invasive search.   
      
      Either way, I wouldn't have to make the decision the Colorado Supreme   
   Court found so repugnant when the kleig lights were trained upon them in   
   Tattered Cover: to submit to what is almost certainly an illegal search,   
   or forfeit a valuable government benefit.  If illegal drug manufacturers   
   have that protection in Colorado, why shouldn't I?   
      
      "Liberty finds no refuge in a jurisprudence of doubt."   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)