Virginiaplanter
Regular Member
33. DiGiacinto v. The Rector and Visitors of George Mason University, __ Va. __, __ S.E.2d __ (2011) January 13, 2011. A Dark and Sad Day in Virginia's History. The Regulation is Upheld as Constitutional and Valid by Subverting the Virginia Constitution.
"We hold that GMU is a sensitive place and that 8 VAC § 35-60-20 is constitutional and does not violate Article I, § 13 of the Constitution of Virginia or the Second Amendment of the federal Constitution...
GMU claims that Article I, § 14 is not a self-executing provision of the Constitution of Virginia. We disagree...Despite our conclusion that Article I, § 14 is self-executing, in order for DiGiacinto to prove a violation of that constitutional provision, he must establish that GMU, in promulgating 8 VAC § 35-60-20, functioned as a separate or independent government. The history of Article I, § 14 indicates that its origin related to the boundary problems that the Commonwealth faced during its inception: "Virginians were concerned that some of the land companies might attempt to create a new state within the boundaries of Virginia in order to enhance their chances of successfully defending claims to vast amounts of unsettled and sparsely settled land." 1 A.E. Dick Howard, Commentaries on the Constitution of Virginia 279 (1974). In the instant case, the argument that GMU, in promulgating 8 VAC § 35-60-20, was attempting to function as a separate government is without merit. GMU had statutory authority under Code § 23-91.29 to make regulations concerning the university. Therefore, GMU did not violate Article I, § 14.
Lastly, DiGiacinto argues that the General Assembly cannot acquiesce or delegate its powers away to GMU. Code § 23-91.24 makes clear that GMU is "subject at all times to the control of the General Assembly." The General Assembly did not improperly give or delegate its powers to GMU. Therefore, we hold that this argument likewise lacks merit.
Accordingly, for the reasons stated, we will affirm the circuit court's judgment."
Note to this decision by Virginia1774.org. The Commentaries by A.E. Dick Howard used by the Court states that Article I, § 13 is not an individual right. The Virginia Supreme Court ruled on the matter of unlawful authority and Va. Const. Art. I, § 14 in 1793 with Justice Roane stating the following: To come now more immediately to the question before the court; can those who are appointed judges in chancery, by an act of assembly, without ballot, and without commission during good behavior, constitutionally exercise that office? The fourteenth article of the Virginia Constitution recites 'that the people have a right to uniform government; and therefore, that no government separate from, or independent of, the government of Virginia, ought to be erected or established within the limits thereof.' Here then is a general principle pervading all the courts mentioned in the Constitution from which, without an exception, we ought not to depart. If those may be judges who are not appointed by joint ballot, but by an act of assembly, the senate have in that instance more power than the Constitution intended; for they control the other branch, by their negative upon the law...For these reasons, and others which it would be tedious to enumerate, I am of opinion, that the clause in question, is repugnant to the fundamental principles of the Constitution, in as much as the judges of the general court have not been balloted for and commissioned as judges in chancery, pursuant to the fourteenth article of the Constitution. Kamper v. Hawkins, 3 Va. (1 Va. Cases) 20, 40-42 (1793). The uniform government clause is not exclusive to land purchases as maintained by A.E. Dick Howard and the Virginia Supreme Court. See Transylvania Treasure or Treason? See Also: § 18.2-308(G)(3) The General Assembly authorizes firearms training at colleges which are open to the general public.
34. Thanks to the Amici the National Rifle Association and the Virginia Citizens Defense League and to all the others who supported this lawsuit.
"We hold that GMU is a sensitive place and that 8 VAC § 35-60-20 is constitutional and does not violate Article I, § 13 of the Constitution of Virginia or the Second Amendment of the federal Constitution...
GMU claims that Article I, § 14 is not a self-executing provision of the Constitution of Virginia. We disagree...Despite our conclusion that Article I, § 14 is self-executing, in order for DiGiacinto to prove a violation of that constitutional provision, he must establish that GMU, in promulgating 8 VAC § 35-60-20, functioned as a separate or independent government. The history of Article I, § 14 indicates that its origin related to the boundary problems that the Commonwealth faced during its inception: "Virginians were concerned that some of the land companies might attempt to create a new state within the boundaries of Virginia in order to enhance their chances of successfully defending claims to vast amounts of unsettled and sparsely settled land." 1 A.E. Dick Howard, Commentaries on the Constitution of Virginia 279 (1974). In the instant case, the argument that GMU, in promulgating 8 VAC § 35-60-20, was attempting to function as a separate government is without merit. GMU had statutory authority under Code § 23-91.29 to make regulations concerning the university. Therefore, GMU did not violate Article I, § 14.
Lastly, DiGiacinto argues that the General Assembly cannot acquiesce or delegate its powers away to GMU. Code § 23-91.24 makes clear that GMU is "subject at all times to the control of the General Assembly." The General Assembly did not improperly give or delegate its powers to GMU. Therefore, we hold that this argument likewise lacks merit.
Accordingly, for the reasons stated, we will affirm the circuit court's judgment."
Note to this decision by Virginia1774.org. The Commentaries by A.E. Dick Howard used by the Court states that Article I, § 13 is not an individual right. The Virginia Supreme Court ruled on the matter of unlawful authority and Va. Const. Art. I, § 14 in 1793 with Justice Roane stating the following: To come now more immediately to the question before the court; can those who are appointed judges in chancery, by an act of assembly, without ballot, and without commission during good behavior, constitutionally exercise that office? The fourteenth article of the Virginia Constitution recites 'that the people have a right to uniform government; and therefore, that no government separate from, or independent of, the government of Virginia, ought to be erected or established within the limits thereof.' Here then is a general principle pervading all the courts mentioned in the Constitution from which, without an exception, we ought not to depart. If those may be judges who are not appointed by joint ballot, but by an act of assembly, the senate have in that instance more power than the Constitution intended; for they control the other branch, by their negative upon the law...For these reasons, and others which it would be tedious to enumerate, I am of opinion, that the clause in question, is repugnant to the fundamental principles of the Constitution, in as much as the judges of the general court have not been balloted for and commissioned as judges in chancery, pursuant to the fourteenth article of the Constitution. Kamper v. Hawkins, 3 Va. (1 Va. Cases) 20, 40-42 (1793). The uniform government clause is not exclusive to land purchases as maintained by A.E. Dick Howard and the Virginia Supreme Court. See Transylvania Treasure or Treason? See Also: § 18.2-308(G)(3) The General Assembly authorizes firearms training at colleges which are open to the general public.
34. Thanks to the Amici the National Rifle Association and the Virginia Citizens Defense League and to all the others who supported this lawsuit.
Last edited: