Posted on 03/03/2011 8:08:15 AM PST by Libloather
Senate Pres.: Cutting Pension Benefits Is Unconstitutional
March 3, 2011 7:29 AM
SPRINGFIELD, Ill. (WBBM) – Illinois Senate President John Cullerton (D-Chicago) says cutting pension benefits for current state employees is, in his words, “clearly unconstitutional.”
**SNIP**
Legal counsel Eric Madiar conducted the analysis for the Illinois Senate Democrats, and says it would indeed be unconstitutional for the General Assembly to cut back pension benefits for current state employees.
“Illinois is one of maybe five states or three states – such as New York, Arizona, Georgia – which really provides absolute constitutional protection to the pension benefits for public employees,” Madiar said.
He said the 1970 Illinois Constitutional Convention delegates were concerned about the fact that like now, the state was not making required contributions to the five pension systems, and might be tempted to squeeze pensions even more.
So, Madiar says, they approved specific language protecting the benefits.
(Excerpt) Read more at chicago.cbslocal.com ...
Even if the state is broke? Neat trick.
It’s also unconstitutional in Illinois for public employee unions to donate to Republicans.
It’s also a neat trick that the article does not quote the language from the state constitution but merely states the conclusion as though it were a fact.
Oh ya its unconstitutional..and publishing a list of names of firearms owners is?
He also said, ‘current hires’. Meaning it’s ok to shaft the young people over.
I think equal protection might have an issue with paying the same people doing the same work entirely different payscales.
Cut across the board.
He should consult with the (former) GM bond holders regarding unconstitutional changes to exiting contracts. It might be instructive.
SECTION 5. PENSION AND RETIREMENT RIGHTS Membership in any pension or retirement system of the State, any unit of local government or school district, or any agency or instrumentality thereof, shall be an enforceable contractual relationship, the benefits of which shall not be diminished or impaired.
We are so screwed.
You know what is NEVER mentioned in this whole folderol about public unions and collective bargaining?
Both Colorado and Missouri DO NOT ALLOW collective bargaining for their public unions.
As for the Illini Sen. Prez, I’d like to know where in the US Constitution it guarantees ever increasing pension benefits? Is it right next to the article that says a driver’s license is a right and NOT a privilege?
Hah!
-Rex
it should make their bonds really attractive. sarc
Since when did the constitution give one favored class of people (”public servants”) unlimited Carte Blanche to take whatever they think they deserve from the rest of us (taxpayers)?
Then Illinois will shrivel up and die.
All the better for us up here in Wisconsin.
The people who wrote the 1970 Illinois Constitution knew they were guaranteeing public employees that their pensions would not be reduced once they started working, according to a new legal analysis by the Senate Democrats’ top lawyer.
The 76-page report – complete with 630 footnotes – attempts to refute arguments by the Civic Committee of the Commercial Club of Chicago that the legislature has the power to change future benefits for current employees.
ANYONE who lives and/or does business in Illinois is STUPID!
Against the State constitution, not the National one.
Indees Obama&Co. proved one can take a contract out on exiting contracts.
We need to amend the Illinois Constitution.
So it looks like the options to deal with unfunded liabilities are:
(a) raise taxes
(b) amend Illinois Constitution
(c) fire public employees in large numbers
(d) do not offer pensions to any new employees
Nasty problem.
I guess the constition will have to be amended. That is what we are going to have to do in KS as a result of the interpretation of the phrase “suitable funding.” The KSSC used this phrase to take funding decisions away from elected legislatures. The legislature does not get to decide what constitutes suitable.
http://www.desotoexplorer.com/posts/home/2011/feb/10/proposed-constitutional-a/
Arguing about "What" does not exist is ridiculous..
THE TRUTH NEEDS TO BE SPOKEN...
Several States needs someone that CAN speak THE TRUTH...
Forcing Taxpayers to PAY BACK what they did Not steal should not happen..
In its analysis, Sidley Austin argues that the two delegates’ opinions do not prove the rest of the convention shared those views.
“The personal views of one delegate cannot compel the adoption of an interpretation of the pension clause that is not supported by its plain meaning and that is contrary to settled principles of constitutional interpretation,” the law firm wrote.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.