Skip to comments.
Filing challenges high court ruling: Federal Judge blocks Nevada Assembly's tax-increase vote
Las Vegas Review-Journal ^
| July 14, 03
| Las Vegas Review-Journal
Posted on 07/14/2003 5:03:52 PM PDT by churchillbuff
LAS VEGAS REVIEW-JOURNAL
U.S. District Judge Philip Pro temporarily restrained the action by which the Nevada Assembly passed a tax bill with less than a two-thirds vote. He ordered an en banc hearing with all district judges for 9 a.m. Wednesday in Reno and Las Vegas.
The Assembly voted 26-16 Sunday for a bill that would increase taxes by a record $788 million over the next two years.
Today, Republican lawmakers, citizens and business groups -- upset with Thursday's decision by the state Supreme Court rejecting the two-thirds vote requirement to pass taxes -- filed an action in U.S. District Court seeking to block the court's ruling.
Assembly Minority Leader Lynn Hettrick, R-Gardnerville, said the federal action is necessary because the 6-1 Supreme Court ruling allowing only a simple majority to raise taxes is unconstitutional.
"We don't believe the court's decision that we can ignore the constitution is legal," he said.
TOPICS: Breaking News; Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; US: Nevada
KEYWORDS: taxes; tyranny
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 161-176 next last
To: churchillbuff
Does the Nevada constitution require a 2/3 majority to raise taxes? Seems so in this tidbit, but how could it be ignored so blatantly
To: churchillbuff
Yes! Up yours, SCONEV!
To: All
"Please contribute to FreeRepublic and make these posts go away"
|
|
Donate Here By Secure Server
Or mail checks to FreeRepublic , LLC PO BOX 9771 FRESNO, CA 93794
or you can use
PayPal at Jimrob@psnw.com
|
STOP BY AND BUMP THE FUNDRAISER THREAD- It is in the breaking news sidebar! Thanks Registered
|
4
posted on
07/14/2003 5:09:12 PM PDT
by
Support Free Republic
(Your support keeps Free Republic going strong!)
To: churchillbuff
Great news! Thanks for the post. This one was steaming me all weekend even though I do not live in Nevada.
5
posted on
07/14/2003 5:11:07 PM PDT
by
microgood
(They will all die......most of them.)
To: churchillbuff
Any idea how the Federal Court determined jurisdiction?
6
posted on
07/14/2003 5:11:19 PM PDT
by
Mr. Lucky
To: Principled
Does the Nevada constitution require a 2/3 majority to raise taxes? Seems so in this tidbit, but how could it be ignored so blatantly
The Supreme Court of Nevada -- a bunch of liberals -- last week ordered the Legislature to ignore the 2/3 requirement and pass a tax increase by a simple majority vote. This, even thought the 2/3 requirement is part of the state constitution (put there through a voter initiative in the early 90s)
To: Principled
Does the Nevada constitution require a 2/3 majority to raise taxes? Seems so in this tidbit, but how could it be ignored so blatantly
The Supreme Court of Nevada -- a bunch of liberals -- last week ordered the Legislature to ignore the 2/3 requirement and pass a tax increase by a simple majority vote. This, even thought the 2/3 requirement is part of the state constitution (put there through a voter initiative in the early 90s)
To: Principled
Does the Nevada constitution require a 2/3 majority to raise taxes? Seems so in this tidbit, but how could it be ignored so blatantly
The Supreme Court of Nevada -- a bunch of liberals -- last week ordered the Legislature to ignore the 2/3 requirement and pass a tax increase by a simple majority vote. This, even thought the 2/3 requirement is part of the state constitution (put there through a voter initiative in the early 90s)
To: Principled
The Supreme Court of Nevada essentially declared the Nevada Constitutional requirement of 2/3rds unconstitutional.
10
posted on
07/14/2003 5:11:42 PM PDT
by
TheAngryClam
(NO MULLIGANS- BILL SIMON, KEEP OUT OF THE RECALL ELECTION!)
To: Mr. Lucky
I'm wondering that myself.
11
posted on
07/14/2003 5:12:35 PM PDT
by
TheAngryClam
(NO MULLIGANS- BILL SIMON, KEEP OUT OF THE RECALL ELECTION!)
To: Mr. Lucky
Actually, the en banc meeting is probably a hearing to determine jurisdiction.
Courts do have the power to adjudicate their own jurisdiction like that, and enforce such injunctions and orders as are necessary to bring that about.
12
posted on
07/14/2003 5:13:32 PM PDT
by
TheAngryClam
(NO MULLIGANS- BILL SIMON, KEEP OUT OF THE RECALL ELECTION!)
To: Principled
Heard it on Rush today. The State Sup Ct said "basic needs" such as properly funded education, trump the state constitution. It appears to be a clearly brazen judicial usurpation--ignoring the law.
13
posted on
07/14/2003 5:15:28 PM PDT
by
ontos-on
To: TheAngryClam
The Supreme Court of Nevada essentially declared the Nevada Constitutional requirement of 2/3rds unconstitutional. How on earth can the state judiciary declare something that's IN the state constitution, unconstitutional????
14
posted on
07/14/2003 5:16:11 PM PDT
by
So Cal Rocket
(Free Miguel and Priscilla!)
To: Principled
Does the Nevada constitution require a 2/3 majority to raise taxes? Seems so in this tidbit, but how could it be ignored so blatantly That's what we Nevadan's are asking, oh naive one, because it took 2 separate votes of the public to put the 2/3's requirement in the state Constitution. Can you spell "Democrats" on the state supreme court? Can you spell "teachers unions"? Can you spell "Rino Governor"? Well, you better pray to God that we take care of this little problem, because if we don't any law in the US can be overturned.
To: Principled
Does the Nevada constitution require a 2/3 majority to raise taxes? Seems so in this tidbit, but how could it be ignored so blatantlyThey just DID IT. The SCONEV literally issued an opinion saying "the right to a well-funded public educational system [a 'right' the liberal SCONEV justices made up out of thin air] outweighs the right of the people to choose what their state constitution says. We hereby order the Legislature to 'show us the money!'" They, of course, have absolutely no authority to say the Constitution itself is invalid (which they did anyway) or to make law from the bench (which they did anyway). I'm not the least bit surprised a federal judge but the brakes on this. He'll almost certainly rule in the end, "The hell you will, Nevada." The SCONEV will get a well-deserved federal smackdown just as the oh-so-appropriately-naked SCOFLA did in the 2000 election.
To: So Cal Rocket
How on earth can the state judiciary declare something that's IN the state constitution, unconstitutional????Same answer as always: They're liberals.
To: ontos-on
egads!
I'm now searching the nevada constitution for this provision. Above in a post, someone said it was added by voter initiative in the 90's. I'll look around and try to paste relative section(s)
To: So Cal Rocket
Welcome to hell.
19
posted on
07/14/2003 5:17:45 PM PDT
by
TheAngryClam
(NO MULLIGANS- BILL SIMON, KEEP OUT OF THE RECALL ELECTION!)
To: Dont Mention the War
I'm glad the fed judge did this, but how does he have jurisdiction in matters of nevada law?
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 161-176 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson