(WA) EFF joins lawsuit to allow vote of the people on state spending limit changes

Evergreen Freedom Foundation ^ | 5-3-05 | Booker Stallworth

[truth49]

OLYMPIA—The Evergreen Freedom Foundation (EFF) today filed a lawsuit asking the Washington Supreme Court to protect the voters’ right to file a referendum on legislative actions, as guaranteed by the state constitution.

In the last days of the recent legislative session, lawmakers passed SB 6078. The measure overturned I-601—the voter-approved initiative that limited government spending and required a two-thirds vote in both houses to raise taxes.

Last week the Washington Farm Bureau filed for a referendum that would put the issue back before voters in the next general election. The Secretary of State’s Office, however, refused to accept the referendum because the legislature attached an “emergency clause” to the bill. The emergency clause causes the bill to take effect immediately after being signed by the governor instead of the usual 90-days wait. It also blocks the voters from pursuing a referendum.

EFF was joined in the lawsuit by the Washington Farm Bureau, Washington State Grange, National Federation of Independent Business and Building Industry Association of Washington. In their lawsuit (a petition for writ of mandamus against Secretary of State Sam Reed), the petitioners argue that appending an emergency clause to the bill was “a clear attempt to deprive people of the right to vote on this significant change to a law initiated by the people.”

The state constitution allows the legislature to adopt an emergency clause, precluding the people’s right to pursue a referendum, only when the law is necessary “for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health or safety, or support of state government.”

“Overturning the voter-approved spending limit and raising taxes was neither an emergency nor necessary” said EFF President Bob Williams. “Denying the people the right and opportunity to vote on the legislature’s gutting of I-601 is the real emergency.”

The lawsuit calls the emergency clause in this case “an unabashed attempt to avoid direct review by the voters.” It asks the Supreme Court to declare the emergency clause invalid, and to order Reed to allow the Farm Bureau’s referendum to go forward.

“If legislators truly believe their actions reflect the will of the people they should join with the lawsuit’s plaintiffs in asking the court to uphold the people’s right to vote on the Farm Bureau’s referendum,” said Williams.

[goldstategop]

The Democrats don't want the people to vote on it. The Commissars Of Soviet Washington State knows what's best for them. The Party's decision is final.

(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)

[MB6.3]

This is good. The legislature engaged in a bit of overreach in their end run around I-601 and they need to be held accountable. Gov, er..former attorney general Christine needs to get in front of this one. Oh, she can't as she brokered part of the "compromise" on raising taxes. Dang.

[Spunky]

Bump!

[Mack the knife]

The obvious way to deal with this problem is to require a 2/3 vote to approve any "emergency" designation.

[Libertarianize the GOP]

Did you see this?

[Lord Nelson]

??? So whose trying to accomplish what here? There is an attempt to put in spending limits?

[Libertarianize the GOP]

I-601 required a 2/3 majority of the State Legislature in order to raise taxes. By a simple majority and the Signature of Gregoire the the 2/3 requirement was removed and then a simple majority raised taxes. If this lawsuit is successful then the Legislature will have to do it all again except we should have a new governor by then.

[Lord Nelson]

I get it. So Gregoire is a typical Democrat who does NOT want limits on spending.

[Libertarianize the GOP]

During the late 1800’s as science was making great strides many came to believe that it would be possible to create scientific formulas optimizing the running of society. Too many Democrats still believe that if all of Society was placed under their brilliant guidance utopia is just around the corner. Taxes are just one means of placing Citizens in the role of Servant.

[Lord Nelson]

Yes, I know they still believe that. Some entire society's (Sweden) have no problem paying taxes as their duty to society.

Have you read Brave New World? From what I know of Ford, he was a social scientist who believed he could create a better world. He went as far as trying to control the habits of his workers after work hours.

America and Canada share the same problem. In a sense it is the public's fault. For instance the US thinks George Bush should do more about gas prices. Somehow people think government is there to fix all our problems. They have impossible expectations - so much so that politicians have to either be seriously deluded or absolute liars to get elected. Thus we get bought with our own money.

Personally I see the beginnings of Statism further back than Marx to the French Revolution. This was was also a war against religion - the ultimate enemy of the state, which seeks to set itself up as God. And a war, as Danton intended, against the champions of free markets.

[Libertarianize the GOP]

It has been a while but yes I have read "Brave New World," I even tried to wade through "Das Kapital" while I was in High School. Ford like Marx saw workers as a resource that should be manipulated for maximum productivity. Marx never pretended that he would make the workers better off. He thought it was a misallocation of resources for men like Ford to be so rich and that Society would be better if the wealth was spent elsewhere.

Politicians are also at fault, they want to help and the only tool they have is Government. Every problem is contorted to where it sort of fits the tool available.

One scholar I read called it the "Parisian Revolution" since it all took place in Paris with only some hired goons brought in from the outside. Maybe you can refresh my memory of Danton's role?

[Lord Nelson]

Um, Danton was the philosopher who wrote about what sort of society he envisioned prior to the revolution beginning. I believe he played some role in the early government but had his neck separated by Robspierre.

History is written through the socialist lens. I got a great education reading some books about the Spanish Revolution from the perspective of the Spanish. Franco was not the villain we have made him into. And those Americans who fought against him fought for the Communists - in fact took indirect orders from the Commintern.

[Libertarianize the GOP]

Not familiar with Spain. As for History have you ever listened to Noam Chomsky and his selective version of history were all world problems are the direct result of intentional American policy? Mr. Chomsky is quite entertaining and occasionally he will make you think. Chomsky demonstrates how history can be narrated to prove any outlandish proposition by touching on few facts and weaving them together with an entertaining and inventive interpretation. Have you read Bertrand Russel, one of Ayn Rand's intellectual villains?

This article on Jefferson seems interesting.

The Forgotten Essentials of Jefferson's Philosophy
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1397466/posts

[Lord Nelson]

I accidentally got roped into reading Chomsky - half way through his book I realized he was a whacked out statist. Isn't Michael Moore a disciple of his. Chomsky obviously has an agenda, to return us to the radical days of the socialist vision for the world. Goes to show that America can easily be linked to all the world's troubles if you have a troubled enough mind like Chomsky. I also, after reading The Great Crash, got roped into reading Sir Kenneth Galbraith - another lover of big government. Although he is more the Keynesian big picture kind of guy, while Chomsky is the social revolutionary.

The trouble with dealing with people like Chomsky is that there is some truth or at least some facts he has right. Meaning American policy is not and has never been perfect. Lots of mistakes have been made. For instance perhaps the Nazis and Communists should have been left to kill each other off. FDR was hoodwinked by Stalin, let his guard done, and lost nuclear secrets to Stalin. The draft was wrong. Whether the Vietnam war was right or not is another issue. But Chomsky hides his true self by targeting all the nasty things the US has done. He is not primarily against the ACTIONS of the US. Ultimately he is against what the United States stands for as a republic. This he will never admit.

I've read Atlas shrugged. I can't remember that character.

[Libertarianize the GOP]

Bertrand Russel was the author of many college philosophy textbooks taught during the 1960's. He was considered to be the most influential academic philosopher of his day. Ayn Rand attacked Russel in "The New Left: The Anti-Industrial Revolution".

Chomsky gave a lecture in Seattle recently were he critiqued Clinton's war over Kosovo. The ideas expressed would have fit right in with many discussions here on FreeRepublic.

[Lord Nelson]

I have yet to read the New Left. I guess I will have to now. Did anyone ever critique Maynard Keynes? Did Von Misis ever go head to head on Keynes? I would love to have seen (read) Von Misis tear Keynes apart.

Who the hell does Chomsky think he is? Is he a political science professor? I'm sure this guy has some forest green radical hippie followers that do the national protest rounds - WTO, anti-Bush, ect... Chomsky reminds me of Lenin. A person who did squat but showed up later to take the credit. Chomsky lets his little brown shirt socialist-welfare army do all the work.

[Libertarianize the GOP]

I believe that Allan Greenspan wrote an article for Ayn Rand's magazine discussing economics. He made more sense during the 1970's. If you are researching Ayn Rand writings see if you can find a copy of her interview with Playboy Magazine where she discusses a woman as president. Von Mises wrote enough critics of Keynes but I don't know if there was a formal debate. Do a google search, you will find lots of articles.

Chomsky's true goals and the theories he offers don't match up. College students are looking for someone worthy to follow and unfortunately there are always charlatans in academia looking for followers.