It’s a question that comes up often after a new law is challenged under the single-subject rule of the Pennsylvania Constitution: Why combine seemingly unrelated imperatives into one piece of legislation?
And one justice of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court posed it point blank to an attorney for the Pennsylvania General Assembly last week during oral arguments in Philadelphia, in a case over whether several changes to Megan’s Law including one criminalizing failing to register as a sex offender were part of an act that violated the single-subject rule of the state constitution.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
