Courts undermine states' right to govern themselves - (behind our backs, this is going on!)

ALABAMA REGISTER.COM ^ | MAY 1, 2005 | GARY PALMER

[CHARLITE]

When the issue of judicial activism comes across the public screen, most people automatically think of judges who violate the Constitution by imposing their personal, ideological agendas on every citizen, regardless of the majority's beliefs or interests.

But there is another form of judicial activism, one that Congress created, that has been displacing representative government at an alarming rate.

This loss of self-rule has come in the form of mandates passed by Congress over the last three decades which drastically affect our state and local governments.

In their recently published book, "Democracy by Decree: What Happens When Courts Run the Govern ment," authors Ross Sandler and David Schoenbrod show that from 1970 to 1999, Congress passed 67 such mandates, the majority of them unfunded.

These mandates created a profusion of new rights in our country covering everything from rights for prison inmates to accessibility rights for people with disabilities to the right of everyone to breathe clean air.

In contrast, for almost two centuries, from 1789 to 1969, Congress only passed 11 such mandates: one in 1931, one in 1940 and nine in the 1960s.

While these mandates may have been well-intended, the results of especially those imposed since the 1970s have been extremely negative. Not only have these mandates created tremendous financial burdens for the taxpayers at the state and local levels, they have also substantially undermined the Constitution's guarantee of the right of every state to govern itself.

These consequences have unfolded as the nation has grown increasingly more conservative and frustrated liberal public interest groups have used the mandates as vehicles by which to impose their own pet public policy agendas.

Through a bombardment of lawsuits, these groups have secured from state and federal courts the rulings and, thus, regulations that they have not been able to pass through Congress or state legislatures or state referendums.

For example, on February 15th of this year, even though the state of New York's education spending of over $11,200 per pupil ranks the third highest in the nation, New York Supreme Court Justice Leland DeGrasse ordered the state to increase education spending by $5.6 billion every year -- a 43 percent increase per year. In addition, DeGrasse ordered the state to spend another $9.2 billion to improve facilities and reduce class size.

This ruling was the culmination of a lawsuit brought by the Campaign for Fiscal Equity, a liberal public interest group which claimed that the New York Assembly was not meeting its constitutional obligation to provide the children of New York with a "sound, basic" education. What the New York Constitution actually says is, "The legislature shall provide for the maintenance and support of a system of free common schools, wherein all the children may be educated."

From this simple requirement to provide a free public school system DeGrasse took it upon himself to determine that the New York public schools were inadequately funded. And this is just one example of thousands of court decisions that are empowering a few well-funded liberal activists in league with activist judges to re-define democracy. This explosion of court orders and similar consent decrees over the last 35 years is draining billions of dollars from state and local governments and interfering with the ability of state and local elected officials to do their jobs by taking away their rightful decision-making authority.

In 1994 alone there were more than 3,500 judicial opinions involving state and local governments across the country. In the last 20 years, Alabama has been under 25 court-ordered consent decrees, including 12 that are still in effect, that cover everything from our prisons to education to the management of state agencies.

Since Congress is largely responsible for creating this mess, it should be Congress that takes action to clean it up. And now the proverbial opportunity has knocked.

A recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling found that consent decrees may "improperly deprive future officials of their designated legislative and executive powers." That is legalese for saying that judges have been unconstitutionally meddling in the business of the states and depriving us of our right to govern ourselves.

Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) and Sen. Mark Pryor (D-Ark.) have seized the opportunity to rein in the judiciary by introducing legislation in Congress that would put term limits on consent decrees. The bill would allow a state or local government that is under a consent decree to file a motion to vacate or modify the consent decree four years after the decree is entered, or six months after the end of the term of the elected official that authorized the settlement.

This would shift the burden to the plaintiff, typically an activist public interest group, to show that the decree is still necessary.

It should be noted that this bill would only affect federal court consent decrees and would not include decrees involving school desegregation.

While this legislation does not affect judicial activism by state courts, it is a good first step by Congress to exercise its constitutional authority to limit the power of the lower federal courts.

And it is the first battle in a long fight against judicial activism and the restoration of the Constitution's guarantee of self-government: government of, by and for the people.

[FormerACLUmember]

The democrat party trial lawyer wing and their affiliated judicial tyrants, oops I meant "activist" judges, have staged a coup d'etat and seized power over us without our consent.

[nothingnew]

I have updated my FMCDH (From My Cold Dead Hands) sign-off with the addition of (BITS).....Blood In The Streets, which I foresee coming soon, due to the enormous increase of the Marxist progressive movement being shoved down the throat of this failing REPUBLIC through the Judicial tyranny of fiat law, the passing of unconstitutional laws by the Legislative and Executive branches of our government and the enormous tax burden placed upon the average American to support unconstitutional programs put forth by Marxist ideology.

I do not advocate revolution. I only think of what I foresee.

FMCDH(BITS)

[CHARLITE]

"I do not advocate revolution. I only think of what I foresee."

Thanks for the reply, nothingnew. Anything new around your house?

Char :)

[F-117A]

Bump!

[Eastbound]

"I do not advocate revolution."

Too bad the libs can't say the same thing. They've been involved in revolution by stealth for decades. A little bit here, a little bit there. Not much left to whittle on.

But not to worry. They wouldn't be so bold as to outlaw and confiscate our guns. That would REALLY give us cause to stomp our feet, shake our fists, and even cuss some. ;<

What is all that ruckus coming out of Chicago? If I'm not mistaken it sounds a lot like feet stomping. Heavens! I hope it doesn't cause an earthquake.