[barmar]

PassedOut, on 2015-June-06, 19:23, said:

The deceit (or the foolishness, if sincere) comes into play when politicians pretend to voters that tax cuts won't require the corresponding expenditure cuts.

I haven't generally noticed that deceit. Tax cuts are usually promoted by Republicans, and their platform also promotes reducing expenditures, particular entitlement programs (in fact, most goverment programs except defense).

[PassedOut]

Kansas Gov. Sam Brownback Threatens to Defund Judiciary if It Rules Against Him

Quote

The Kansas trouble started in 2014, when the state supreme court ruled that the disparity between school funding in rich and poor districts violated the state constitution. The justices ordered the legislature to fix the problem. Soon after, the legislature passed an administrative law that stripped the supreme court of its authority to appoint local chief judges and set district court budgets.

...

Now the court has an opportunity to strike down the administrative law, which probably violates the state constitution. And that's where Brownback's new law comes in. The law declares that if the supreme court strikes down the administrative law, the entire state judiciary will lose its funding.

This governor knows how to deal with those damned liberals on the court!

[Winstonm]

PassedOut, on 2015-June-09, 07:49, said:

Kansas Gov. Sam Brownback Threatens to Defund Judiciary if It Rules Against Him


This governor knows how to deal with those damned liberals on the court!

What we need is a real tyrant to make sure our democracy doesn't disintegrate into rabble-rousing equality.

[barmar]

While I don't want to defend the governor's action, isn't there a conflict of interest if the court rules on actions of the other branches that directly impact its activity? Shouldn't this go to a higher court (SCOTUS)?

[PassedOut]

barmar, on 2015-June-09, 09:35, said:

While I don't want to defend the governor's action, isn't there a conflict of interest if the court rules on actions of the other branches that directly impact its activity? Shouldn't this go to a higher court (SCOTUS)?

Do you think it will? I'd be interested to hear from one of our lawyers on whether it should.

[blackshoe]

I don't know whether it should or not, but it occurs to me to wonder "what if a similar situation happened at the federal level? What then?" There is no higher court than SCOTUS.

[PassedOut]

blackshoe, on 2015-June-09, 10:29, said:

There is no higher court than SCOTUS.

Don't you recognize the World Court?

[blackshoe]

No. Not where it concerns the internal affairs of a nation.

[ArtK78]

And that is the proper analogy. The Kansas Supreme Court has the last word on what happens in Kansas, at least when no federal interest in involved. As was mentioned above, the beginning of this controversy involved a ruling of the Kansas Supreme Court based on its reading of the state constitution. The federal courts, including the Supreme Court, have no jurisdiction on matters dealing with state constitutional issues unless a provision in the state constitution violates federal law (for example, suppose the Kansas State Constitution allowed slavery - clearly, this would violate the federal constitution and the federal courts could strike that provision of the Kansas State Constitution).

As for the world court, the less said, the better.

[kenberg]

ArtK78, on 2015-June-09, 12:44, said:

And that is the proper analogy. The Kansas Supreme Court has the last word on what happens in Kansas, at least when no federal interest in involved. As was mentioned above, the beginning of this controversy involved a ruling of the Kansas Supreme Court based on its reading of the state constitution. The federal courts, including the Supreme Court, have no jurisdiction on matters dealing with state constitutional issues unless a provision in the state constitution violates federal law (for example, suppose the Kansas State Constitution allowed slavery - clearly, this would violate the federal constitution and the federal courts could strike that provision of the Kansas State Constitution).

As for the world court, the less said, the better.

This makes sense to me. I am not a constitutional (or any sort of) lawyer, but it makes sense. Now whether the court's ruling makes senses, I don't know. And, probably, I don't want to invest a lot of energy in thinking about it. All in all, the whole thing sounds awful and the people of Kansas have to deal with it. They all seem seriously odd to me. But yes, I am here, they are there, it's for Kansans to deal with. I wish them luck.

I'll pay my taxes honestly and I won't whine about it. In return, our elected representatives are supposed to be able to plan well enough so that they don't run out of money and then fail to pay state employees. . Is that asking too much? As mentioned, we had many furloughs in Maryland and we are all, well, almost all, Dems here. Reps have no monopoly on incompetence. Although this episode seems particularly impressive.

[barmar]

blackshoe, on 2015-June-09, 10:29, said:

I don't know whether it should or not, but it occurs to me to wonder "what if a similar situation happened at the federal level? What then?" There is no higher court than SCOTUS.

I was actually wondering the same thing when I wrote my post.

So what happens if the President and Congress conspire to disband the Supreme Court? It's obviously unconstitutional, but if the court has been dissolved, who would make this ruling? They don't even need to disband the court, just ignore what it says -- the judicial branch depends on the other branches to enforce its rulings.

[ArtK78]

barmar, on 2015-June-10, 09:24, said:

I was actually wondering the same thing when I wrote my post.

So what happens if the President and Congress conspire to disband the Supreme Court? It's obviously unconstitutional, but if the court has been dissolved, who would make this ruling? They don't even need to disband the court, just ignore what it says -- the judicial branch depends on the other branches to enforce its rulings.

That is what is referred to as anarchy.

If the Executive is not willing to follow the laws enacted by the Legislature as interpreted by the Judiciary, then everything falls apart. Fortunately, even under the Nixon administration, the Executive did yield to the other branches. The same can be said of the FDR administration.

[billw55]

barmar, on 2015-June-10, 09:24, said:

I was actually wondering the same thing when I wrote my post.

So what happens if the President and Congress conspire to disband the Supreme Court? It's obviously unconstitutional, but if the court has been dissolved, who would make this ruling? They don't even need to disband the court, just ignore what it says -- the judicial branch depends on the other branches to enforce its rulings.

Hopefully, the population would then reject those members of the other branches who ignore the constitution. You ignore the court? I vote you out of office. However this may not be working in Kansas, so it might not work nationally either.

[barmar]

billw55, on 2015-June-10, 09:45, said:

Hopefully, the population would then reject those members of the other branches who ignore the constitution. You ignore the court? I vote you out of office.

You vote me out of office, I ignore your vote. The Legislature passes a law? I'm the President, I have the FBI and I'm Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces.

Isn't this kind of how coups happen?

[billw55]

barmar, on 2015-June-10, 09:50, said:

You vote me out of office, I ignore your vote. The Legislature passes a law? I'm the President, I have the FBI and I'm Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces.

Isn't this kind of how coups happen?

Yes, if the executive persists, it would ultimately come down to whether the military follows such orders. In the USA, I think we are far from that point. Our military oaths still say to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. The command structure would not (I hope) follow grossly unconstitutional orders.

If you listen to conspiracy nuts, you will hear some say that Obama plans to retain the presidency indefinitely by force. This is bunk of course, but beyond that, it most certainly could not happen even if he tried.

[mike777]

Through out history there are examples of one branch of govt ignoring the ruling or law of the other branch.


Call it anarchy is going a bit too far. CAll it an interpretation of the law or ruling so they can do what they think is best.


See Worchester vs Georgia decision as one example


FDR did certain things such as weapons to the UK.
-------------

A more current example was the whole Jerusalem part of Israel passport issue.
Congress said yes, the executive branch said no we will ignore the law.

SC just ruled executive branch could but of course for years before they just ignored the law.
---------------
--------------

Sort of on this theme of power in govt is the issue of the Power of IT security in the govt.

For example:
1) the govt says govt employees can not access their personal email on govt computers. It is an IT security issue.
2) govt unions say hold on we disagree. IT is an issue to be bargain over, we get a say
3) So far the courts have sided with the Unions, so there is a giant hole in IT security for hackers.

[PassedOut]

mike777, on 2015-June-10, 11:20, said:

A more current example was the whole Jerusalem part of Israel passport issue.
Congress said yes, the executive branch said no we will ignore the law.

SC just ruled executive branch could but of course for years before they just ignored the law.

The way I understood it, George Bush issued a presidential signing statement refusing to enforce that provision because that provision was an unconstitutional infringement on executive powers. The Supreme Court ruled that Bush was correct. That's not quite the same as "ignoring" the law.

If I misunderstood this, I'd again like an explanation from our resident lawyers.

[ArtK78]

Let's put it this way.

If the Executive did it, and the Judiciary approved it, then it is the law.

[blackshoe]

billw55, on 2015-June-10, 10:12, said:

Yes, if the executive persists, it would ultimately come down to whether the military follows such orders. In the USA, I think we are far from that point. Our military oaths still say to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. The command structure would not (I hope) follow grossly unconstitutional orders.

Our (military officers') oath is to the Constitution, 'tis true. So is every other high level official's.

Quote

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.”
— U.S. Constitution, Article VI, clause 3

One hopes that not everybody in government would simultaneously decide to disregard his oath.

[barmar]

blackshoe, on 2015-June-10, 13:16, said:

One hopes that not everybody in government would simultaneously decide to disregard his oath.

One could argue that the gridlock in the government for the past few administrations is an example of that, although not as extreme as dissolving the Supreme Court.

But others might argue that they're upholding their oath. It's all a matter of perspective.