Whether the Colorado Constitution's requirement that all laws be enacted by the General Assembly is satisfied by the omission of the enacting clause from the Colorado Revised Statutes

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED jee Abvackinent Ts ie Louk Vat the Celorades Constiiution, Sp eciSies thak he stale oF all laws of Yhis stake shall be Be tk enacted by the Reneral Assembly oF the Stare of Colorado? Cols. Conak, art.v.§ 18. Ls the Colorado Court of Appeals Correct in explain . thal the enackin 9 Clause as Mishel inte Selon Laws 8 Colorado sabisSies this mane, »Sv Ucexcor ? Peo pe vw ashing Lort,Ho9 R2d TBAWO(Celo. App.1998). Tre omission of the, enacting clause. Srom the Colorads Revised Stakubes doestk or not vendor the, Statutes uncon stitiutbonal ? Pople v. Washington eS Pd 188.190 (Colo Am. P “9 ARP J99R). Courts in cther stakes , Tonstruing similar stake tonstiiis Stsnal provisions nay eruled that thee yr ecise Soom of She commonly called *emarting clause” is mandaXoritin Yhe of ficial publication oF Che \aws ywould This be an unporbant Federab question in. veard Ko Due Process of Law (the char qerginstrunast) conflisbing with the decision of another state court ? See Suen em Come Rule 10 (band ,and Fi$bh ad Fourteenth, Kober dments. See Paliney v. AvK_amsas, 137 Ark. Ved, 208 S.W.436 (1919) Siebergv. Seeuriiy Savings Ww Loan Ase 78 Mirn.203, 75 NW. Wi USSR), 8 GBANLDLC A QUESTION(S) PRESENTED When a states "Bill of Rights", calls for the prosecution of felonies *only by indictment whether prosecution by any other method conforms with the states | constitutional "uniformity of laws clause", and the protections of the ygth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution? Whether _a Government Officers "discretion" can abolish the substantial : amie a wovernment Uiticers discretion” constitutional safeguard of a grand jury indictment, to one portion of citizens | charge with felonies, but leave it in effect to another portion of citizens . who are charged with felonies? y An indictment confers competent subject-matter jurisdiction on the district court. An indictment is also the culmination of the robable cause screenin ET te cmination of the probable cause screening , process of the Grand Jury and that procedure functions as a "constitutionally adequate" substitute for a preliminary hearing whether a petitioner can be deprived of an indictment and a preliminary hearing and be awarded a fair | trial. (Note: Defendant made no waiver of these protections) Whether the substantial ~ due process safeguards to the accused provided by | the requirement that such an offense be prosecuted by indictment can be eradicated on the theory that noncompliance is a mere technical departure from the rules? (Note: Se, Hagner vs. United States, 2.85 U.S. 427, also see, Williams vs. United States, 341 U.S. 97) [**997] When a Grand Jury Indictment. is incorporated in a States Bill of Rights, and when a state Habeas applicant makes a Prima Facie showing that he was prosecuted for a felony, without an indictment. Whether a state judge can dismiss the Habeas as having no merit? (Note: This arbitrary action violates the due process protections of the National and State Constitution) When the sentencing courts mittimus is absolutely void for want of jurisdiction, whether a 2254 Habeas applicant can be required to exhaust remedies before his writ is issued? Whether state statues can be applied in a manner that creates ex post facto laws, by altering the necessary criminal rules of procedure (e.g. indictment for a felony) and by requiring that different or less testimony is needed the law requires at time of the offense to convict the offender? When a State Bill of Rights guarantees an indictment for a felony, and when | it was the common law practice to add any facts or elements that increase : punishment in an indictment. \ A | eAULvVIL -— A . Whether a prosecutor can charge a defendant of an aggravated crime when the | defendant was not proceeded against by an indictment. (Note: Se,