Posted on 01/08/2013 4:32:38 PM PST by Libloather
**SNIP**
Others stood against any pension changes. Some who were willing to entertain a new approach criticized the proposal as too harsh on public employees and retirees. Still others contended the proposal violates a state constitutional prohibition on diminishing or impairing public employee pensions, as union officials have maintained.
Rep. Jim Durkin scoffed at the excuses for a lack of action, criticizing lawmakers who raised concerns that the pension bill might not be constitutional.
"I'm perplexed that members of the Legislature now have grave concerns regarding the constitutionality of the pension legislation when they've disregarded the constitutionality of every other bill we've passed in the last 20 years," said Durkin, R-Western Springs.
(Excerpt) Read more at chicagotribune.com ...
Just an observation, but it would seem like they’d have to invent thirty or forty new tax situations...against travelers and out-of-state folks who own homes or businesses there. Everything from boat licenses to tire disposal will likely have new fees attached...to somehow continue the trend.
I strongly Disagree, and I believe ANY STATE can Nullify EVERY Public Employee Contract immediately, and when the Union files their lawsuit, the State only has to CONFESS to FRAUD , COLLUSION, and Conspiracy to Defraud. Provide the Court with all documents detailing how Every Last elected official that was supposedly negotiating on behalf of the Citizen Taxpayers, was and is BEING PAID by the parties they are negotiating with. Furnish the Court with a simple document using basic 5th grade math demonstrating that these Contracts are Mathematically Impossible to fulfill, thereby deeming it a PONZI SCHEME, which is wholly Illegal.
I don’t see where the Unions go if this is done. Other than straight to hell where they belong.
You are making two different, and contradictory, arguments. First, that the legislature may unilaterally void a contract that a previous session of the legislature authorized the State to enter into, and second that the legislature can go to the courts and ask them to void a contract on some sort of fraud in the inducement and/or impossible performance theory.
You are also missing the point that while a State's own laws may give it sovereign immunity from suits, in its own courts, to enforce certain contracts, and while the 11th Amendment may also shelter it being sued in Federal Court to enforce those contracts, there is still a default, even if the creditor does not have an effective remedy.
Look at this case about former Texas Tech coach Mike Leach, who lost his employment law suit on sovereign immunity grounds. A Law That Lets the State Decide Who Can File Suit Against It
As the story says, Texas is not in the habit of stiffing vendors, and a (theoretical - he would still have to win on the merits) loss suffered by one football coach is not going to undermine the confidence that vendors and lenders have that Texas will pay. But if a State starts repudiating bonds, or vested retirement plans, it will be a default, and it will shatter the confidence of vendors and lenders, even if the State can somehow show that its actions don't amount to a takings under the U.S. Constitution.
Something HAS to be done with regards to all these Ponzi Scheme pension contracts that ENSLAVE our Children to PAY for what OUR Government is Spending today. We know these Contracts are By Definition Fraudulent and Ponzi Schemes, we Know they are Mathematically Impossible to fulfill, Maybe we should wait til the System collapses instead. At least my way it brings All the RATS out into the OPEN. The system will collapse regardless and I think you know this.
I'm not saying that these pensions are going to be paid, just that it will be a default when they aren't paid.
When a state goes into fiscal insolvency, it should cease to exist as a state and revert to territorial status. Its Senate seats, House seats, and Electoral Votes should cease to exist also. The people of the territory(s) should then be able to reorganize and create new states from the remains of the old states.
Perhaps, it should.
But, to my knowledge, there is no provision in the Constitution or statutory law for any punishment in the event of a state's insolvency.
I am aware, though, that at least one state has a condition on its remaining in the union. The terms for Oklahoma's statehood included a provision that, in the event of impeachment of a second governor, the state would revert to territorial status.
And, in Oklahoma's case, that's one down and one to go...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.