[Huck]

There is more than one issue presented in the article.

I didn't see a single constitutional issue mentioned. What are the constitutional issues?

Did you catch the reference to the amount of money spent on Mental Health?

First, the figure comes without a reference. 28 mil sounds a little high for a county. Where did they get that figure? How does the money break down?

Second, how is the mental health allocations of a COUNTY a constitutional issue?

[citizenK]

Since the judge won't address the issue of jurisdiction in the manner prescribed by the law, we don't know enough to determine if the judge is acting outside his jurisdiction with respect to the original charges set forth against the disgruntled ex-cop who failed to produce his license. However, this episode exposes the abuses of the judicial system with respect to the incarceration of people based upon the judgement that their differences in opinion about a given law consititute mental illness that justifies their detention.

Why doesn't the judge simply rule on the jurisdiction issue (in writing) as required by the law instead of questioning the man's mental capacity?

The answer is because this judge (typical of judges across the country) is in command of tremendous hubris that makes him think he is the law himself, not an edjudicator of the law itself. The moral of the story is that if you have a dispute with a judge, even on a strictly legal matter like jurisdiction, then you can wind up being declared mentally incompetent and detained for an indefinite period of time. Don't you think that runs contrary to the letter and spirit of the Constitution?