Bob Marshall has 5 Questions

This is what Bob Marshall just asked Bob McDonnell in a letter.  Very interesting!

1. Are the taxes and fees imposed in HB 3202 (or the Governor’s substitute) that apply to

Northern Virginia

and/or Hampton Roads local, state or regional taxes?

2. Please specify the constitutional authority for the governing bodies of 7 of 12 localities in Hampton Roads to impose the taxes and fees purported to be authorized in either HB 3202 or the substitute on all of the localities comprising the so-called Hampton Roads Transportation Authority?;

3. What is the constitutional authority of the six chief elected officials of

Northern Virginia

localities comprising the so-called Northern Virginia Transportation Authority to impose the taxes and fees authorized in Governor Kaine’s Substitute for HB 3202 throughout the jurisdictions comprising Planning District 8?

4. Why are there no provisions for regional voter approval for the Northern Virginia and Hampton Roads Transportation Authorities in the Substitute for HB 3202 since the powers of regional territorial governments, ie., the authority to impose fees and taxes, not merely collect them, and other powers are purportedly conferred on both the Authorities as political subdivisions of the Commonwealth since this make these two Authorities de facto regional governments in violation of the VA Const. Art, VII, Sect. 1? 

5. Further, since the VA Constitution (Art. VII, Sect. 2,

Para

. 3) states that regional governments must be approved by a majority of voters in each jurisdiction participating in the regional government, how can the Governor’s Substitute providing that 6 of 9 representatives of No VA jurisdictions, or 7 of 12 governing bodies of localities in Hampton Roads possibly satisfy this provision of the Virginia Constitution which requires voter referenda? 

Comments

I don't agree with Bob Marshall on many things, but he's right on the money on transportation this year. Not only is the GA's attempt to avoid accountability and play pass-the-buck on transportation funding reprehensible, it's probably also unconstitutional. The leadership in the House of Delegates should be ashamed.

It will be interesting to see who votes for all those tax increases. There are like 30 of them.

[MickeyMouse]

Similar questions were asked and the answers were provided by the Attorney General himself directly in this Bearing Drift podcast.
http://bearingdrift.com/blog/2007/03/20/podcast-with-ag-mcdonnell-archived-on-line/

[frustrated lawyer]

1. Regional
2. None
3. None
4. Because no one reads the Constitution anymore
5. It doesn't

[Not Harry F. Byrd, Sr.]

Strict constructionists.

Sometimes you love 'em, sometimes (usually) you hate 'em.

[Doug in Mount Vernon]

The trouble with strict constructionists:

They are not very strict in sticking to the spirit or purpose of a consitution, which is to serve as an inspired guideline and framework against which all statutory law should be written, not a literal manifesto to spell anything out.

The other problem is they're not very constructive, rather destructive to the progression of society and the innovations of technology.

[Doug in Mount Vernon]

Boy, Kris really nailed this one:

http://www.7-west.org/2007/03/27/not-perfect-indeed/

[Nipper]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/28/AR2007032802037.html

With all the interest on this site in the office of Clerk of Court, take a look at what has been going on in Fairfax's Commonwealth Attorney's office. This is a pretty damning article.