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 ...
Agreed. But the thought of what the result would be with this bunch in charge is pretty damned frightening. But another poster here put it this way:"When there is no more money, the pensions will not be paid no matter what the Illinois Constitution says."
Now that's a fact. But when the State bond rating goes to FFF (if there is such a thing) and they can't borrow from Peter to pay retired Illinois EPA Drone Barney Bungalow the money will stop.
And just wait till the LINK cards stop working. Personally I'm looking forward to the rosy glow in the sky to my east when the West and South Sides of Chicago go up in flames. I'm going to open bottle of good Bourbon, light a cigar, kick back and enjoy.
L
The Illinois Constitution’s Pension Clause
“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.”
Contractual agreements can be amended by an agreement between the parties. If the governor (not Quinn, who is as insane and in the bag for unions as any liberal Democrat anywhere) were told that its members would have to accept a reduction in benefits in order to avoid massive layoffs, then I suspect it could be put through. I don't know, though, whether the "contract" alluded to in the constitutional provision is between the state and each individual employee or between the state and the union as its bargaining entity.
It would be very worthwhile to see what Sidley Austin wrote about this provision and the ability of the state to change it.
Particularly if the State of Illinois goes bankrupt.
FWIW, I think states should be allowed to file for bankruptcy, the same as individuals and companies.
As a result, they would lose their statehood status and revert to a territory until such time as they became solvent and applied for readmission to the union. Reverting to territorial status would also mean the loss of any congressional representation except for a lone nonvoting delegate in the House of Representatives, similar to what American Samoa and Guam now enjoy.
They, and their residents, would also get a diminished right to federal funds and a diminished responsibility to pay federal income taxes, similar to what territories now have.
There would also be a minimum 10 year waiting period before their status as a state could be restored. After that, even territorial entities of a minimum size (for example, 10 counties and 400,000 people) could vote to split off from the original territory and petition for readmission as a new state.
Can you imagine how much sanity could be restored to the presidential election process without the electoral votes of California, Illinois and other liberal states?
Yep it is about which Democratic constituency gets burned next. My guess is that the welfare class and its contractors are spared while the combine goes after the Southwest Side’s Government/and or Union Industrial Complex.
Particularly if the State of Illinois goes bankrupt.
FWIW, I think states should be allowed to file for bankruptcy, the same as individuals and companies.
As a result, they would lose their statehood status and revert to a territory until such time as they became solvent and applied for readmission to the union. Reverting to territorial status would also mean the loss of any congressional representation except for a lone nonvoting delegate in the House of Representatives, similar to what American Samoa and Guam now enjoy.
They, and their residents, would also get a diminished right to federal funds and a diminished responsibility to pay federal income taxes, similar to what territories now have.
There would also be a minimum 10 year waiting period before their status as a state could be restored. After that, even territorial entities of a minimum size (for example, 10 counties and 400,000 people) could vote to split off from the original territory and petition for readmission as a new state.
Can you imagine how much sanity could be restored to the presidential election process without the electoral votes of California, Illinois and other liberal states?
Do we need a new convention or can we pass a single amendment?
And just wait till the LINK cards stop working.
Sorry, we can't pay you, it's in the Constitution. LOL!
Got it! Thanks!
That’s BS.
Ahem.
-Rex
I'm not sure. What say we do a bit of research and find out if an Amendment can come by Citizen Initiative in our fine State.
SECTION 3. CONSTITUTIONAL INITIATIVE FOR LEGISLATIVE ARTICLE
Amendments to Article IV of this Constitution may be proposed by a petition signed by a number of electors equal in number to at least eight percent of the total votes cast for candidates for Governor in the preceding gubernatorial election. Amendments shall be limited to structural and procedural subjects contained in Article IV.
Article IV concerns the legislature, pensions are in Article XIII.
And he continues, "No wait, it's eight, no, nine. Well maybe only 2. Actually, is there really 1?"
The word “unconstitutional” is quickly reaching the status of the word “racist,” meaningless because of overuse in inappropriate circumstances.
The word has been so trivialized that, it is rapidly becoming unconstitutional for you to occupy the parking space I had my eye on, and waited for as the prior occupant backed out.
Those bastards back in 1970 really f***** us good.
And if we had a new convention, they’d f*** us worse.
I just checked the IL constitution, and I didn’t see the word “pension.”
I see the word in there 3 times.
New Jersey also has Constitutional prevention of reduction in pensions.
Blago swung it so the State could borrow a few billion from these very same pensions to pay bills not long ago.
Of course they want that pool of funds to be protected.
Which article(s) of the state constitution mentions “pension”? I’ll read it, again, if you tell me.
I quoted it verbatim above.
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.