So, the Seattle Times did an article today:
The Court, of course, has zero power over the Legislature, much like the Legislature has zero power over the Court.
What this decision does is provide everyone with cover to cave to the WEA in about every respect and, claiming the threat of being held in contempt over this civil matter, waste additional billions on an out of control, unaccountable education plant, under some sort of nebulous threat by the Court, a threat they have no power to enforce.
You see, the Court made a decision based on a document called the Washington State Constitution.
It's the same Constitution that makes legislators immune to this sort of thing.
As I was discussing this with a legislator today, they expressed concern over being held in contempt.
I expressed a different kind of concern, one where this would be just the start of court imposed legislation.
Where does it end?
The Court has no jurisdiction over the legislature. They cannot force the Legislature to do anything any more than the Legislature can force the Court to do anything.
That's the entire nature of our state government, one of those inconvenient truths those trying to rip us off tend to avoid discussing.
But presuming they did have this bizarre power... where would it end?
What would those foaming at the mouth be saying if, for example, the Court took a different tack, and decided instead that we were spending billions too much on education?
What if the Court demands say, city council district lines drawn by race... a direct violation of I-200?
What if the Court decided we needed an income tax?
Would those falsely claiming they have the power to make these decisions be as supportive if the shoe were on the other foot for purposes of this academic discussion?
Of course not.
And that's the thing: this power is only delegated when those who have it chose to delegate it.
In this case, the precedent is set by, effectively, the Legislature delegating THEIR power of the purse to the Court.
Any order the Court makes concerning money would have to be funded. Refuse to fund it.
What can the court do?
This is a civil matter, after all, they can't even serve these people while the legislature is in session... let alone fine them or lock them up": that same constitution forbids it.
The first is that neither House of the Legislature must adjourn.
Staying in session, even pro-forma, would provide civil immunity indefinitely to all members.
Second is that the Court cannot attempt any sanction against any Legislator generally or the Legislature as a whole specifically during session or for 15 days afterwords; and that if they were to wait until the 15 day period had elapsed, any such sanction would result in an immediate special session which would, equally, result in the reestablishment of Legislative civil immunity. (Based on Art 2 Sec 16 of the Washington State Constitution ibid)
These minor details are secondary to the concept of co-equal branches of government where no branch has any power beyond their function over any other branch... the Court cannot order the Legislature to Legislate, they cannot order the Governor to sign a bill and they cannot enforce their decision on McCleary.
To do so would be as unconstitutional as the basis for the decision itself.
The job of the court is to determine the constitutionality of the actions of the Legislature as it Legislates.
But they are possessed of no power to force the legislature to do anything. They can through their legal power and jurisdiction, stop unconstitutional laws from going into effect... but that sums up their power.
For if they were possessed of the ability to force expenditures on this using the "reasoning" behind McCleary, there is no end to their efforts to supplant the will of the people as expressed at the polls every time another person is elected or reelected to the position of state representative or state senator.
The PEOPLE are the ultimate arbitrators of the job the Legislative Branch is doing, period.
And again, I believe both that the Court is fully cognizant of that and that such cognizance is why their decision and subsequent hissy fits have not included any actual actions of any kind.
When it comes to McCleary, et all, the Legislature and the people would be best served by ignoring the Court's decision on that matter since while it may even be factual and correct per se', that does not allow the Court to overstep it's jurisdictional boundaries any more than a lawyer can break privilege... and we all know THAT can't happen... don't we?
The Legislature has the tools to ignore the Court on McCleary. The only question is this: do they have the will?
And they'd better. Because if they go along with this legislative rape, this is just the start of an expansion of the Court's turf wayyyy over into the Legislature's turf. And there's no telling what those Puget Sound leftists will come up with next.
And it's really decent of them to make that decision... since the legislature can... and should... ignore them and do whatever they want on the matter.
Supreme Court to hold off on punishing lawmakers over education funding
The state Supreme Court will hold off on whether to punish lawmakers over the lack of a K-12 school-funding plan until after the special legislative session ends.
The Court, of course, has zero power over the Legislature, much like the Legislature has zero power over the Court.
What this decision does is provide everyone with cover to cave to the WEA in about every respect and, claiming the threat of being held in contempt over this civil matter, waste additional billions on an out of control, unaccountable education plant, under some sort of nebulous threat by the Court, a threat they have no power to enforce.
You see, the Court made a decision based on a document called the Washington State Constitution.
It's the same Constitution that makes legislators immune to this sort of thing.
As I was discussing this with a legislator today, they expressed concern over being held in contempt.
I expressed a different kind of concern, one where this would be just the start of court imposed legislation.
Where does it end?
The Court has no jurisdiction over the legislature. They cannot force the Legislature to do anything any more than the Legislature can force the Court to do anything.
That's the entire nature of our state government, one of those inconvenient truths those trying to rip us off tend to avoid discussing.
But presuming they did have this bizarre power... where would it end?
What would those foaming at the mouth be saying if, for example, the Court took a different tack, and decided instead that we were spending billions too much on education?
What if the Court demands say, city council district lines drawn by race... a direct violation of I-200?
What if the Court decided we needed an income tax?
Would those falsely claiming they have the power to make these decisions be as supportive if the shoe were on the other foot for purposes of this academic discussion?
Of course not.
And that's the thing: this power is only delegated when those who have it chose to delegate it.
In this case, the precedent is set by, effectively, the Legislature delegating THEIR power of the purse to the Court.
Any order the Court makes concerning money would have to be funded. Refuse to fund it.
What can the court do?
This is a civil matter, after all, they can't even serve these people while the legislature is in session... let alone fine them or lock them up": that same constitution forbids it.
In America, the constitutions of 43 states provide legislators with a fundamental protection of free speech and debate. This immunity protects legislators from punitive executive or judicial action. The intent is to allow lawmakers to work independently and unimpeded by the threat of intervention from the other branches of government in the discharge of their legislative duties.
Court decisions interpreting the extent of protection afforded by legislative immunity vary. The interpretations have centered on a definition of “legitimate legislative activity.” Such activities extend beyond floor debate and include the act of voting and views expressed in committee deliberations.Article 2, Section 16 of the Constitution is fairly straightforward on the issue:
"Members of the legislature shall be privileged from arrest in all cases except treason, felony and breach of the peace; they shall not be subject to any civil process during the session of the legislature, nor for fifteen days next before the commencement of each session."...
The underscored phrase, grammatically speaking, only applies to the second clause of the constitution involving immunity from civil process. In view of our negative answer to question (1), however, it will readily be seen that this distinction is of very little practical importance. A member of the legislature may be arrested for the commission of any crime, including a traffic offense constituting a misdemeanor under RCW 46.61.010, at any time‑-regardless of whether or not the legislature is in session. That is so because, under the majority view which we have here adopted, the constitutional privilege does not apply to any form of criminal conduct by a legislator. Conversely, under the second clause of the subject section of the constitution a legislator is immune from civil process ". . . during the session of the legislature . . ." and, as well, for 15 days next before the commencement of each such session. Cf.,Seamans v. Walgren, 82 Wn.2d 771, 514 P.2d 166 (1973).Clearly, then, the entirety of this issue is civil in nature; the Court cannot act in any way against the legislature as a whole or any of it's specific members during session or for 15 days after sine die, thus then there are two issues to consider, decided by the US Supreme Court recently against the President.
The first is that neither House of the Legislature must adjourn.
Staying in session, even pro-forma, would provide civil immunity indefinitely to all members.
Supreme Court rebukes Obama on recess appointments
The Supreme Court ruled unanimously Thursday that President Obama exceeded his constitutional authority in making high-level government appointments in 2012 when he declared the Senate to be in recess and unable to act on the nominations.
Obama made appointments to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) at a time when the Senate was holding pro forma sessions every three days precisely to thwart the president’s ability to exercise the power.
“The Senate is in session when it says it is,” Justice Stephen G. Breyer wrote for the court, stressing that if the Senate is able to conduct business, that is enough to keep the president from making recess appointments.That, then, would clearly apply to this instant situation in every respect. If the House and the Senate say they are in session, then they are, in fact, in session. And if they are in session...
Second is that the Court cannot attempt any sanction against any Legislator generally or the Legislature as a whole specifically during session or for 15 days afterwords; and that if they were to wait until the 15 day period had elapsed, any such sanction would result in an immediate special session which would, equally, result in the reestablishment of Legislative civil immunity. (Based on Art 2 Sec 16 of the Washington State Constitution ibid)
These minor details are secondary to the concept of co-equal branches of government where no branch has any power beyond their function over any other branch... the Court cannot order the Legislature to Legislate, they cannot order the Governor to sign a bill and they cannot enforce their decision on McCleary.
To do so would be as unconstitutional as the basis for the decision itself.
The job of the court is to determine the constitutionality of the actions of the Legislature as it Legislates.
But they are possessed of no power to force the legislature to do anything. They can through their legal power and jurisdiction, stop unconstitutional laws from going into effect... but that sums up their power.
For if they were possessed of the ability to force expenditures on this using the "reasoning" behind McCleary, there is no end to their efforts to supplant the will of the people as expressed at the polls every time another person is elected or reelected to the position of state representative or state senator.
The PEOPLE are the ultimate arbitrators of the job the Legislative Branch is doing, period.
And again, I believe both that the Court is fully cognizant of that and that such cognizance is why their decision and subsequent hissy fits have not included any actual actions of any kind.
When it comes to McCleary, et all, the Legislature and the people would be best served by ignoring the Court's decision on that matter since while it may even be factual and correct per se', that does not allow the Court to overstep it's jurisdictional boundaries any more than a lawyer can break privilege... and we all know THAT can't happen... don't we?
The Legislature has the tools to ignore the Court on McCleary. The only question is this: do they have the will?
And they'd better. Because if they go along with this legislative rape, this is just the start of an expansion of the Court's turf wayyyy over into the Legislature's turf. And there's no telling what those Puget Sound leftists will come up with next.
No comments:
Post a Comment