. . .  it'll make things interesting for them.

I was in federal court this a.m. and he's going to send the question regarding the validity of the charter and the underlying opinion to the Tennessee Supreme Court as a certified question under Rule 23 for the Tennessee Supreme Court's determination, as the invalidity of the home rule charter causes the local adult bookstore law to fail.  The Tennessee Supreme Court could wait until the Tennessee Court of Appeals passes judgment on the case and then accept the certification question from Federal Court in Knoxville or they could just say no, which is highly unlikely, since the validity of the county charter is purely a question of state law and the validity of the adult bookstore ordinance can be a question of federal law involving first amendment liberties.

Somebody needs to ask Moyers (assuming he's still running for Chancellor) why he's hiring Chattanooga lawyers to defend the County on these bookstore cases, particularly since the attorney's in Knox County are paying his salary, the attorney's in Knox County are donating money to his campaign, and the attorney's in Knox County are expected to vote in the election.  Last time I checked, Hamilton County attorney's had no vote in Knox County, but I could be wrong. 

There is an abundance of logic in Jarvis' comments regarding those who invalidated it are the ones who are being asked to fix it, although I'm not sure you want the federal judge deciding that question.

 Weaver’s ruling must be overturned for the welfare of the people.

 Rule of law shouldn't apply here, is that what I'm hearing? If the charter was not valid from the start then nothing which occurred under its banner has been lawful. Now for any and all that say that this is going to cause a ton of lawsuits, they are probably right but does that change the fact that the charter was invalid--NO. Think along the lines of the warrantless wiretapping program, is it legal--NO. Now you have some Republicans saying the law should be changed to make it legal but that doesn't change the fact that it is currently illegal. Knox County's charter is currently illegal, no change to the charter alters that fact. No "do over" will fix this.

"No party has done so much for so few who need so little.” -Elliot Spitzer on the Republican Party

Who are some of the legal experts you referenced in another thread that feel Weaver's decision won't be overturned?

The corporate charter analogy doesn't work because the county is not owned by the mayor and commissioners. If it's owned at all, it's by the voters or by the state, neither of which is responsible for the defects. If an employee-owned corporation hired a law firm to draft their by-laws and register the corporation with the state and the lawyers made mistakes similar to what happened here, the firm would be sued for incompetence and neglect, but the corporation would not necessarily dissolve. They would get new attorneys and repair the damage.

Furthermore, an actual corporation requires certification from the state before it exists, but the enabling legislation regarding county charters says the charter is ratified when it wins majority approval from the voters. There is no analogous status with respect to a private corporation.

Sorry, Old Hickory, I cannot agree with your analogy.  What you have said about Bbeanster's corporation is unquestionably true.  I cannot agree, however, that the same principles apply to a form of government clearly voted in by the people of a county, and a private corporation established for the personal benefit of Ms. Beanster.

The main reason I cannot agree is Article I, Section 1, of the Tennessee Constitution, and the use that the Supreme Court of Tennessee made of that section in the Memphis term limits case.  The sections states, among other things, that  all power is inherent in the people and that the people have at all times an "unalienable and indefeasicle right to alter, reform, or abolish the government in such manner as they may think proper."  No such rights apply to private corporations.

The Supreme Court's rejoinder to the plaintiffs in the Memphis term limits case seems to me equally applicable to the Jordan case.  The Court stated:

Accepting the plaintiffs’ position in this case would require us to ignore the fundamental principle of self-government embodied in Article I, section 1.  This we are not willing to do.  

Will the same court be willing to ignore the clearly enacted intent of the people of Knox County because of the incompetence of Knox County's elected officials?  I hope not, and I cannot agree that they would be correct in doing so.  Neither can I agree that they would do so unless and until I see them do it.

It is entirely unclear to me why five term limited county commissioners, sworn to uphold the County Charter for (at a minimum) 8 years and in some cases for decades, have a right to bring a suit to declare the same County Charter invalid.  If anyone has an obligation to ensure that the Charter is valid, it would be these same elected officials.  They have failed us, each and every one.  Can they now be heard in a court of equity to say that the charter is invalid, for their own personal benefit?  Once again, I hope not.