Comment on Entry: Supreme Court of WA Overturns Two-Thirds Requirement to Increase Taxes, authored by pudge
1. But it passed by a Supermajority of the Supreme Court, so it must be OK.

Posted by President Obama at February 28, 2013 05:04 PM
2. Democrats in Olympia would do well to remember that the 2/3 vote passed this past November in EVERY SINGLE COUNTY of this state. And it was just about 2/3 of the people who voted yes, btw.

NO NEW TAXES

Posted by Princess Leia at February 28, 2013 06:22 PM
3. Looks like it's time for you conservatives to get working on an amendment to the Washngton State Constitution.

Posted by Ten Years After at February 28, 2013 07:01 PM
4. Looks like it's time for you conservatives to get working on an amendment to the Washngton State Constitution.

Posted by Ten Years After at February 28, 2013 07:03 PM
5. "You can bet your bottom tax dollar that we'll have a constitutional amendment on the table soon, to put this thrice-passed initiative into the state constitution."

Requires a 2/3 majority in BOTH the House and the Senate, then a popular vote of the people at a simple majority, per our State constitution, to enact a new amendment.

How will you get 2/3 of the House and the Senate?

In all this, was the system working as intended. Live by a Federal and state constitution, die by a Federal and state constitution. They cannot be held up as cherished unless it also is held up as cherished when it cuts us and hurts what we want.

Posted by DaFuq at February 28, 2013 08:08 PM
6. So if a gun control initiative, say, banning "assault weapons" gets passed, you won't advocate for a legal challenge? I'm not asking that to be snarky, rather, I'm asking how far does the will of the people as the supreme legislature extend?

Posted by kb at February 28, 2013 08:49 PM
7. DaFuq: it's not Democrats vs. Republicans here, it's Republicans and Democrats vs. Democrats. I think you'll either get 2/3 of each house soon, or the voters will start to clean house to get it. It's clear the voters want it.

In all this, was the system working as intended.

Well, except for the part where the Court incorrectly and partisanly interpreted the constitution.


kb: are you asking me? I never said there should be no legal challenges. But there is no avenue left for a legal challenge. This is purely a state issue, and the highest court in the state has ruled. There's no legal challenge left to make.

If it were on gun rights, you could appeal to the federal courts, since the Second Amendment is in play. No such thing here.

Posted by pudge at March 1, 2013 08:06 AM
8. Gee, what a novel idea...let the people affect legislation. Thanks for the post, Pudge.
Smacked of a scheme to raise taxes to me; I'd be surprised if that in fact doesn't happen.

Posted by Duffman at March 1, 2013 08:39 AM
9. It has become an us vs them mentality for everyone employed on the public dime. They rode the entitlement and pension benefit elevator up all the way through the 90s and 2000s as those of us who are actually supporting the economy were looking the other way, working hard, and generating wealth. They got use to believing they are on par with the private sector, something that up until the 1990s, was never true, and still is not true.

Now, with a destroyer in the White House, and 60s hippies retiring and sitting on their asses as they always have and yet still asking for more entitlement until death, prosperity is ending! And those in government can see that the gig is up. They can clearly see that now, only those that generate real value are going to get anything in return.

So they are uniting on all fronts to protect their undeserved gains and power. Installing parking meters and red light cams, marching like idiots in union protests, passing laws, focusing on meaningless social issues to buy votes, and overturning the will of the people. Anything to bring in the precious "revenue" to sustain their way of life. The WA Supreme Court is no longer about upholding the law, evaluating the law, or even a serious body. It is just another building full of bureaucrats in Olympia/Tumwater, no different from union protecting droids in cubes at L&I.

They will lose, as they have in states like Wisconsin. Because there is not enough of a tax base left to support them all. And what is left, they are ironically trying to destroy at every turn with increased regulation, unsustainable and very expensive healthcare, increased taxes on businesses and their executives to the point that many will give up, or seek lower tax havens.

These idiots are going to go down kicking and screaming and doing everything they can to squeeze more milk out, long after there is nothing left. Should be fun to watch.

Posted by Leftover at March 1, 2013 11:46 AM
10. "I find the reasoning specious, as does a third of the Court."

That's even less than 51 percent.

Given the contaxt of the situation, I find it interesting that you would consider that statistic as somehow supporting your view

Posted by red hiney monkey at March 1, 2013 11:47 AM
11. hiney: you're very, very confused. Clearly, I was conceding the legal battle was lost. So therefore, I was not citing the fact as being relevant to whether or not my view was going to be, any time soon, the law of the land.

So think a little bit more about why I might have cited it.

Maybe because many people, like Senator Brown, erroneously believe that her view is so clearly true?

Posted by pudge at March 1, 2013 11:54 AM
12. @10 red hiney monkey - "contaxt"? Freudian slip perhaps?

Posted by SouthernRoots at March 1, 2013 12:44 PM
13. Pudge,
First off, thanks for opening your posts for comments.

Second, I do find the reasoning, as you quoted, also troubling. What I find troubling is the fact that it seems to allow the legislature the right to change its rules without an amendment to the constitution. If the people are required to seek an amendment, then so to would the legislature also be required. Since the current constitution does not specify 2/3rds, then an amendment would be required, no matter who initiated the change.

Second, you quote Article II of the state's constitution. How do you square, however, later in the the same article, section 1(a), where initiatives are described, the following:

"... Such initiative measures, whether certified or provisionally certified, shall take precedence over all other measures in the legislature except appropriation bills and shall be either enacted or rejected without change or amendment by the legislature before the end of such regular session...."

Doesn't this wording limit initiatives impact on spending (and by default revenues) bills?

I read through the current constitution and don't find where it grants the people the right to change the rules implemented in the initiative that was rejected. However, this should have been addressed when the initiative was first approved to the voters, not after the fact (i.e., it should have been ruled non-constitutional prior to voting). I will admit the initiatives approach in Washington state is somewhat confusing to those of us who grew up in other states. Of course, it probably is clean compared to California's [basket] case.

Posted by say what at March 1, 2013 12:49 PM
14. Neo-Cons, you should pay attention to what Ten Years After posted at 3 (and 4 (Whoops! I've double posted it by accident myself!))!!!

The only way you're going to get the 2/3 thingy is to amend the WA State Constitution. End of story!!

Posted by Politically Incorrect at March 1, 2013 12:58 PM
15. " "contaxt"? Freudian slip perhaps?" Contaxt is just a misspelled word. You misunderstand the meaning of a Freudian slip.

Pudge -- So, you cited the fact that one third of the judges disagreed with the majority just as some sort of 'gee whiz' fact that had nothing to do with what you are trying to say?

You are the type of person who, if they mistakenly sprinkled their steak with sugar, would nonetheless insist that it was salt.

Posted by red hiney monkey at March 1, 2013 01:24 PM
16. hiney: Pudge -- So, you cited the fact that one third of the judges disagreed with the majority just as some sort of 'gee whiz' fact that had nothing to do with what you are trying to say?

Nope. It had a lot to do with what I said. I even explained it for you. Try harder, maybe?

Posted by pudge at March 1, 2013 01:29 PM
17. Are you guys banning Roger Rabbit's comments,on this blog? If so, why?

Posted by Ten Years After at March 1, 2013 02:52 PM
18. Tried and true way of getting what you want out of your "representatives" in Olympia. Elect them! Throw the Dems out and elect Repubs, on a spending-reduction, tax-reduction platform. Everyone will be happier, have more of their own hard-earned money to spend, and no constitutional amendment necessary.

Posted by RushBabe49 at March 1, 2013 08:43 PM
19. The state supremes just jumped the shark. The people can legalize gay marriage, and they can legalize pot, but do not let them limit Olympia's power to tax them to death. Just when our new guv was positioning himself to give us a new state income tax, the supremes got their timing off and picked a fight with everyone in the state who has a job and doesn't work for the state gov't. or belong to a union.

Posted by BobB at March 1, 2013 10:29 PM
20. From 19,

The problem you note is that marijuana legalization and gay marriage aren't issues covered by the state Constitution, whereas taxation issues are. If you conservatives really want the 2/3 rule for raising taxes, then you must start a successful campaign to amen the state Constitution.

Posted by Ten Years After at March 2, 2013 05:02 AM
21. If you follow the Washington State Supreme Court long enough, it will become clear eventually that the court is nothing more than another political arm of the Democrat Party and/or special interests.

Above all, it is the defender of the Ruling class and its interests above all. The 2/3s requirement inhibit Progressive government's ability to extort and redistribute. Mechanisms that suppress that will NEVER be allowed. Not here or anywhere Progressives are running things.

It is fun watching states like California doubling down on tax and spend. The only downside is that when it implodes, we'll all be on the hook to bail them out.

Posted by Reality at March 4, 2013 06:10 AM
22. We just saw the biggest tax increase in the history a month ago, and now Owebamma wants more tax increases instead of just cutting his massive spending, or his blessed government.

Now the state is at it again raising everything from bike taxes, gas taxes, car tabs, and if it moves tax it taxes.

I say Screw em all!

Posted by gs at March 4, 2013 05:22 PM
23. We just saw the biggest tax increase in the history a month ago, and now Owebamma wants more tax increases instead of just cutting his massive spending, or his blessed government.

Now the state is at it again raising everything from bike taxes, gas taxes, car tabs, and if it moves tax it taxes.

I say Screw em all!

Posted by gs at March 4, 2013 05:23 PM
24. @22,23 - I agree. Many of the GOP who were invited to have dinner with Obama last night may not be adept enough to be hip to his "game" (decimate the GOP) unless he suddenly changes his stripes, for which there is no tangible evidence to believe.

His policies and his blessed government have become a cancer to his constituents. Hopefully, it won't end up like it did to Barry's ideological soulmate, the late Hugo Chavez. Hats off to the Republican and other opposition who rise up to fight all of the outrage from the Federal Government !

Posted by KDS at March 7, 2013 12:35 PM
Post a comment
Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:


Remember info?