[Principled]

CARSON CITY, Nev. (AP) – The state Supreme Court ruled Thursday that Nevada’s constitutional requirement that tax increases be approved by a two-thirds vote of the Legislature must give way to another constitutional mandate – to adequately fund public education.

[blackdog]

I find it hard to think that the Nevada constitution uses the phrase "to adequately fund public education"?

It may say "to fund", but I would not think it would address adequacy issues? I mean adequacy is a purely amorphous goal.

The mandate of adequacy in my bank statement is directly at odds with my mandate to adequately feed, clothe, and shelter my family. I can do that in an apartment with maccaroni and cheese or I can do that in a mansion with filet mignion and Perrier. Both could be deemed adequate while one runs $700 per month and the other runs $7000 per month. I guess I should go find a judge to find out which is best huh?

[The Red Zone]

The state Supreme Court ruled Thursday that Nevada’s constitutional requirement that tax increases be approved by a two-thirds vote of the Legislature must give way to another constitutional mandate – to adequately fund public education.

Well it would seem like the buck stops there. You get one state constitutional provision saying "you must" and another saying "you can't" and the state supreme court has to figure out what happens when the irresistable force meets the immovable object.