The General Assembly Challenges the Constitutionality of Article V- Section 10 in 1978 (Its Long- but it says it all!)

IN RE 42 PA. C.S. § 1703 482 Pa. 522 (1978)
394 A.2d 444 In re 42 PA. C.S. § 1703.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. November 14, 1978.

Gentlemen: We respectfully submit this direct letter of address as a means of making our views known to you, the representatives of our two coordinate branches of government.1 We do so in order to convey to you as quickly and as precisely as possible our reasons for not complying with the provisions of the Public Agency Open Meeting Law (P.L. 486, No. 175) in our promulgation on November 14, 1978, of Amendments to Rules of Civil Procedure 51, 52 and 76. See our order of that date, No. 53, Civil Procedural Rules Docket No. 5, copy attached.

The submission of this direct letter of address in no way suggests any departure from firm precedent against rendering of advisory opinions. Neither does this letter signal any weakening in our commitment that the judiciary not unnecessarily intrude in legislative matters. Rather, in [ 482 Pa. 525 ]this special situation in which we, as an institution, are constrained not to follow an expressed mandate of the General Assembly, we feel it incumbent on ourselves as a matter of deepest respect to our coordinate branches to explain that position as promptly as possible. The alternative course would be to await an adversary challenge to our failure to follow the Open Meeting Law. This approach would risk creating and prolonging unnecessary tension between our branches of government. Accordingly, we have chosen this letter of address by which to articulate our decision.

 The Honorable Milton J. Shapp Governor of Pennsylvania 225 Capitol Building Harrisburg, Pa. 17120

The Honorable Ernest P. Kline President of the Senate 200 Capitol Building Harrisburg, Pa. 17120

The Honorable K. Leroy Irvis Speaker of the House of Representatives 139 Capitol Building Harrisburg, Pa. 17120

IN RE 42 PA. C.S. § 1703; November 14, 1978.

Text of Article V Section 10 (C) - Amended to the Constitution in 1968

§ 10.  Judicial administration.
 
        (c)  The Supreme Court shall have the power to prescribe
     general rules governing practice, procedure and the conduct of
     all courts, justices of the peace and all officers serving
     process or enforcing orders, judgments or decrees of any court
     or justice of the peace, including the power to provide for
     assignment and reassignment of classes of actions or classes of
     appeals among the several courts as the needs of justice shall
     require, and for admission to the bar and to practice law, and
     the administration of all courts and supervision of all officers
     of the Judicial Branch, if such rules are consistent with this
     Constitution and neither abridge, enlarge nor modify the
     substantive rights of any litigant, nor affect the right of the
     General Assembly to determine the jurisdiction of any court or
     justice of the peace, nor suspend nor alter any statute of
     limitation or repose. All laws shall be suspended to the extent
     that they are inconsistent with rules prescribed under these
     provisions. Notwithstanding the provisions of this section, the
     General Assembly may by statute provide for the manner of
     testimony of child victims or child material witnesses in
     criminal proceedings, including the use of videotaped
     depositions or testimony by closed-circuit television.
        (d)  The Chief Justice and president judges of all courts
     with seven or less judges shall be the justice or judge longest
     in continuous service on their respective courts; and in the
     event of his resignation from this position the justice or judge
     next longest in continuous service shall be the Chief Justice or
     president judge. The president judges of all other courts shall
     be selected for five-year terms by the members of their
     respective courts, except that the president judge of the
     traffic court in the City of Philadelphia shall be appointed by
     the Governor. A Chief Justice or president judge may resign such
     position and remain a member of the court. In the event of a tie
     vote for office of president judge in a court which elects its
     president judge, the Supreme Court shall appoint as president
     judge one of the judges receiving the highest number of votes.
        (e)  Should any two or more justices or judges of the same
     court assume office at the same time, they shall cast lots
     forthwith for priority of commission, and certify the results to
     the Governor who shall issue their commissions accordingly.
     (Nov. 4, 2003, P.L.  , J.R.1)

        2003 Amendment.  Joint Resolution No.1 amended subsec. (c).
        Cross References.  Section 10 is referred to in sections 11,
     16 of the schedule to this article.

Repeal PA Constitution Article V - Section 10

Copy, sign and snail mail to the State Legislators in Pennsylvania  found at this link... Let them know they will not be re-elected if they do not act on these very vital changes that need to be made! Don't be afraid to sign your name and contact info..I did!

PROPOSAL TO THE PENNSYLVANIA JUDICIARY COMMITTEE  AND THE LEGISLATURE:

Repeal PA Constitution Article  V  - Section 10  

This Article is in violation of the U.S. Constitution in two ways- it violates the mandate that only Congress can pass laws; and it usurps the checks and balance mechanism that is crucial for a democratic system.  The  current structure of the legal system is impotent, and entirely self-defeating of  the principles of an impartial court system. To have a self-regulated branch of government, has created a venue for racketeering. There is no motivation for an attorney to expeditiously end a legal matter with the absurd hourly fee structure;  they are further pressured by law firms who inflict profit quotas on their employees.  While the Supreme Court claimed  it must be “independent” to function- what they have really become is a rogue and suppressive branch of government- promoting collusion of judges and attorneys to furthering the profits of the bar association members.

Are the Inmates Running the Asylum in Your State?

COURT RULES IN OTHER STATES-LEGISLATIVE APPROVAL
 

Topic:CONSTITUTIONAL LAW; COURT PROCEDURE; COURTS; LEGISLATURES (GENERAL);

 December 30, 2008 2008-R-0430

COURT RULES IN OTHER STATES-LEGISLATIVE APPROVAL

By: Christopher Reinhart, Senior Attorney

George Coppolo, Chief Attorney

You asked whether in other states, the legislative branch either establishes or approves court rules of practice and procedure.

SUMMARY

Courts in 22 states, with minor exceptions in three of the states noted below, appear to have exclusive authority to adopt court rules. The source of this authority is either in an explicit constitutional provision, the courts' interpretation of its inherent authority under the constitution, a statute, or a combination of these sources.

 In 11 of these states, the state constitution explicitly grants the courts rulemaking authority: Arizona, Colorado (with an exception for misdemeanor trials in County Courts), Delaware, Georgia (with an exception for certain pilot programs), Hawaii, Kentucky, Michigan, New Hampshire (also specified in statute), North Dakota, Pennsylvania (with an exception for legislation on child witnesses), and West Virginia.

 In two of these states, the courts have ruled that their inherent powers under the constitution include rulemaking: Minnesota and New Mexico. In an additional seven states, statutes authorize the courts to make rules and we also found court rulings on or mention of the courts' inherent authority to do so: Arkansas, Idaho, Indiana, Mississippi, Oklahoma, Washington, and Wyoming.

 In two states, statutes grant the courts rulemaking authority: Maine and Rhode Island. In the remaining states, there is some role for the legislature in the rulemaking process. This is established either explicitly in the state constitution, in statutes, or by interpretations of the constitution.

COURT RULES IN OTHER STATES-LEGISLATIVE APPROVAL　

§ 1703. Meeting procedures -Ruled Unconstitutional by the Supreme Court

§ 1703.  Meeting procedures.
        The Supreme Court and all other agencies and units of the
     unified judicial system when exercising the powers to recommend
     or adopt general rules or other orders in the nature of
     regulations shall be an agency within the meaning of the act of
     July 19, 1974 (P.L.486, No.175), referred to as the Public
     Agency Open Meeting Law.
     (Apr. 28, 1978, P.L.202, No.53, eff. 60 days)

        1978 Amendment.  Act 53 added section 1703.
        Constitutionality.  Section 1703 was declared
     unconstitutional on November 14, 1978, by the Supreme Court of
     Pennsylvania in a letter to the Governor and the General
     Assembly. See In re 42 Pa.C.S. § 1703, 482 Pa. 522, 394 A.2d
     444.
        References in Text.  The act of July 19, 1974 (P.L.486,
     No.175), referred to as the Public Agency Open Meeting Law,
     referred to in this section, was repealed by the act of July 3,
     1986 (P.L.388, No.84), known as the Sunshine Act