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.
I believe in constitutional rights. I believe that the Nevada Supreme Court has the authority to interpret the laws (including the Constition) of Nevada. Those on the other side of the fence do not believe that the Nevada Supreme Court should be the ultimate authority in interpreting Nevada's laws.
The questions realted to when and how the initiative came to pass.
If you'd read a little more, you'd find more sense.
Can the USSC declare than the 14th Amendment infringes on the 2nd and is therefore unConstitutional? I think not.
Congress passes a law. President vetos the law. Check on Congress.
Congress overturns vetoe with 2/3 in each house. Check on Executive Branch.
Supreme Court rules law is unConstitutional. Check on both branches.
People pass Amendment specifically telling the SC what it wants. Check on Supreme Court.
Executive branch enforces the law of the land
. What happens if SC oversteps its authority and executive won't enforce the will of the people?
yitbos
I am neither aware, nor very aware. This is the one thing in your post that contributes to the forum - thanks.
Could you tell us what exceptions have been made and whether it is germane to this complaint?
See post #40. Also, some links provided show the complaint itself and some relevant information regarding the 2/3 requirement.
ANother poster said that "exceptions have been made" to the 2/3 requirement, but he did not elaborate on what the exceptions were, nor did he indicate that it had any bearing here.
Maybe he'll respond.
I think Ken's comment is dead on.
I sense that this case is headed for the USSC, and quickly, for the issues at hand are among the most fundamental to our [supposedly] democratic republic.
This has all the makings of a monumentally historic case which has the potential to determine _whether or not_ our democratic republic can _remain_ exactly that. Or, do we risk becoming nothing more than a fiefdom, lorded over at the whims of imperial judges?
When I first read about the Nevada Supreme Court's opinion, I was shocked. If a judge, or judges, can blatantly IGNORE the plainly-written language of the Constitution under which he/she/they sit, at the same time also ignoring the will of the people as expressed through the legislature, the essence of the Republic is in mortal danger. This _isn't_ "interpretation": the Nevada Constitution explicitly specifies how a budget is to be enacted.
There is nothing to "interpret" here at all. This is nothing less than an overt attempt to usurp the democratic process through judicial power, in which the judges of the Court have "called the bluff" of all those whom they hold "below them".
What if the Nevada legislature is now unable to pass a budget by a simple majority? Will the Nevada Supreme Court further order that a budget favorable to its whim be passed by a plurality?
To put it another way, suppose the United States Supreme Court was to order the U.S. Congress to _re-enact_ welfare laws, on the supposition that welfare for the indigent was a _fundamental right_, the need for which superseded previously-enacted laws to reform it? Or, to order the Congress to pass "health care for all" legislation, regardless of the cost, claiming that it "discovered" that access to complete health care was another of those "fundamental rights" hidden in the "penumbras" of the Constitution?
Again, this has the makings of a monumental ideological contest. I hope the folks "on our side" won't give up the battle too quickly.
Cheers!
- John
Why not simply require a 20% "Yes" to pass? 11%? 1 vote?
If the nevada constitution allows for it, fine. But there's just no way to "interpret" that 2/3 only means 2/3 when some justices think so.
I'd just tell Ms. Justice Agosti to try to enforce it. Does she have an army?
The rights inherent in the concept of "ordered liberty" are protected from state tyranny by the 14th amendment. It is interesting to see this discussed in the different context of a footnote in Scalia's dissent in the recent sodomy case, Lawrence v. Texas:
3 The Court is quite right that “history and tradition are the starting point but not in all cases the ending point of the substantive due process inquiry,” ante, at 11. An asserted “fundamental liberty inter-est” must not only be “deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradi-tion,” Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U. S. 702, 721 (1997), but it must also be “implicit in the concept of ordered liberty,” so that “neither liberty nor justice would exist if [it] were sacrificed,” ibid. Moreover, liberty interests unsupported by history and tradition, though not deserving of “heightened scrutiny,” are still protected from state laws that are not rationally related to any legitimate state interest. Id., at 722. As I proceed to discuss, it is this latter principle that the Court applies in the present case.
10 LAWRENCE v. TEXAS SCALIA, J., dissenting
I was into this thread and had to leave briefly. I come back with a lot of interest and hopefully answers to questions only to be assailed by some newbie flexing his verbal revolver. Not what I was ready for.
I could have ignored, but it was too blatant.
Apologies to the forum.
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.