162 F.3d 1148 (2nd Cir. 1998), 97-7952, Schulz v. New York State Executive
|Citation:||162 F.3d 1148|
|Party Name:||Robert L. SCHULZ and John Salvador, Jr., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. NEW YORK STATE EXECUTIVE, et al., Defendants-Appellees.|
|Case Date:||April 06, 1998|
|Court:||United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit|
This opinion appears in the Federal reporter in a table titled "Table of Decisions Without Reported Opinions". (See FI CTA2 s 0.23 regarding use of unpublished opinions)
For Appellants: ROBERT L. SCHULZ, pro se, Queensbury, NY.
For Appellees: FRANK K. WALSH, for DENNIS C. VACCO, Attorney General of the State of New York (PETER H. SCHIFF, of counsel), Albany, NY, for State Appellees.
FREDERICK A.O. SCHWARZ, Jr., Cravath, Swaine & Moore, New York, NY, for Appellees Finnegan and Sheffer.
PRESENT: HON. WILFRED FEINBERG, HON. GUIDO CALABRESI, HON. MYRON H. BRIGHT, [*] Circuit Judges.
This cause came on to be heard on the transcript of record from the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York (Thomas J. McAvoy, Chief Judge ) and was argued.
UPON CONSIDERATION WHEREOF, it is ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the judgment be and it hereby is AFFIRMED.
Robert L. Schulz, joined by co-plaintiff-appellant John Salvador, Jr., brings this federal action to challenge various laws of the State of New York. Finding their appeal meritless, we affirm the judgment of the district court dismissing their suit.
The complaint in the district court made a myriad of challenges to New York's Clean Water/Clean Bond Act of 1996 ("Bond Act"), the Farmer's Protection and Farm Preservation Act ("Farm Act"), and various "General Government Appropriations" bills (including § 123-b(1) of the New York State Finance Law), as well as claims against state actors who spoke in favor of passing these bills, and a general assault on the proposed New York constitutional convention. The legal theories advanced to support these claims ranged from the frivolous--for example, that the Farm Act, by treating non-farmers differently from farmers, violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment--to the exotic--for instance, that the delegation of authority to the New York State Constitutional Convention offends the general constitutional principle of "government based upon the consent of the governed."
Among the several grounds upon which we might affirm the district court, see...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP