is that a spark?

◼ Youth Protection Act hearing canceled
◼ Updated version
TS BREAKING NEWS: United States District Court Judge Saundra Armstrong canceled the oral arguments expected to be heard today on motions to the federal government's challenge to Eureka and Arcata's Youth Protection Acts.

Last November, voters in both cities passed twin measures aiming to prohibit the military recruiting of minors within city limits.

The government quickly sued, saying the cities can't regulate the activities of federal authorities, citing the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution. Government attorneys also argue that military recruiting serves a vital national interest.

The two measures run so far out of the purview of local governments, federal attorneys argue, they should be determined null and void without a trial.

Lawyers for Arcata and Eureka have argued that the government's recruiting policies are in violation of a 2002 international treaty that bans the recruiting of children under 17.

Armstrong was scheduled to hear oral arguments in the case today, but canceled the hearing, saying she would issue a ruling based on written arguments filed with the court.

That's not uncommon in federal court, said Eureka City Attorney Sheryl Schaffner, who traveled down to the San Francisco Bay Area for the hearing. Schaffner said she was informed that Armstrong expects to issue a ruling by the end of the week.

The cancellation of the hearing, Schaffner said, is probably not a good sign for the Youth Protection Acts.

"I suspect that, if anything, it's a negative sign for us because we obviously have the steeper hill to climb," Schaffner said.

Have to agree with the first comment: Oh for god sakes this is funny. Measure T went down with a preliminary injunction and in this case the Judge cancelled oral arguments as they were a complete waste of her time and decided to rule on the pleadings.

When will the local progs quit submitting blatantly unconstitutional proposed ordinances to the voters all the while telling them (lying) that they are constitutional?