This message was self-deleted by its author

[hlthe2b]

1. The law was promulgated BEFORE AZ was even a state. That's ridiculous...

One could just as well argue that Mexican laws applied or those of Spanish conquistadors. I have not seen it decisively discussed whether there had been ANY attempt once AZ adopted a constitution to form a US state whether these territorial "laws" were specifically evaluated and voted on by a legal forum for inclusion. If someone has read those details, feel free to weigh in. I know that was NOT the case in WYOMING-- and as a result, many old relic laws were summarily and formally excluded a few decades ago when the state legislature sought to update certain areas of its laws in cooperation with the courts. The assumption was that they were no longer valid, but since they were taking the time to review some areas, they would just make it official. I recall hearing that one that was removed had allowed for periods of severe wind (a common annoyance and even dangerous phenomenon in WY) to be used as a positive (affirmative) defense in murder trials. (yes, really).

As far as I know, there has been no litigation on whether or not laws passed before statehood remain in effect, but it would be interesting to know what even a morally corrupt SCOTUS would say about that.