Posted on 07/10/2009 8:32:40 PM PDT by Steelfish
July 10, 2009 Suit Challenges Two-Thirds Vote On Taxes
A former UCLA chancellor asked the California Supreme Court today to declare that the state constitution's requirement of two-thirds legislative votes to raise taxes is invalid.
The suit was filed by Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP on behalf of Charles Young, former chancellor of the University of California, Los Angeles, and director of the Museum of Contemporary Art in Los Angeles.
The suit described Young as "a citizen, taxpayer, and voter of the State of California, interested in seeing that the California government carries out its public duty consistent with constitutional mandates..."
The legal theory of the suit, which names the Legislature's chief clerks as the technical defendants, is that when voters passed Proposition 13 in 1978, cutting property taxes and requiring a two-thirds vote for tax increases, it was a "revision" of the state constitution rather than an "amendment."
The constitution allows amendments to be made by initiative petition but allows revisions - generally a more fundamental change - to be made only through a constitutional revision commission or a constitutional convention.
It's essentially the same argument that opponents of Proposition 8, the 2008 measure that outlawed same-sex marriages, made in attempting to persuade the state Supreme Court to void that measure.
But the court, which had earlier sanctioned same-sex marriages, ruled that Proposition 8 was valid.
The two-thirds vote requirement has largely thwarted efforts by Democrats and liberal groups to raise taxes to cover the state's periodic budget deficits since Republican votes are needed.
A few Republicans did vote for new taxes last February, but the budget remains imbalanced, and GOP leaders, along with Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, are insisting that the remaining deficit be covered by spending cuts rather than new taxes.
(Excerpt) Read more at sacbee.com ...
Weenies and crybabies! They will stop at nothing to raise our taxes!
Last one in California, turn out the lights.
The UCLA knucklehead should be tarred and feathered.
We I read stories like this, I have to wonder why the politicians just don’t make taxes voluntary. Allow people to pay all the taxes they want to pay. There are so many good liberals out there just chomping at the bit and wanting to pay more taxes. If the politicians would only make taxes voluntary and allow people to pay all the taxes they want to pay, all of our problems would be solved.
The Strauss is Robert Strauss, former big wig Democrat. Was the DNC Chair I think at one time, maybe around Watergate (or was it Larry O’Brien).
We? Dang! I meant “When”
Why don’t all the Kaleefornneea liberals pool their money and just donate to the Ca. State General Fund? Instead they want to force the general public to pay more taxes against their will. Didn’t that referendum vote against higher taxes in May send a signal? But noooo.. Tyrant liberals wish to throw out the will of the people
because they know better!
If we could just do away with that pesky 2/3 vote requirement to raise taxes, all our budget problems would go away. It’s either that or we need to get rid of more republican obstructionists.
I guess he doesn't his gravy train derailed.
The Constitution is Unconstitional. War is Peace.
Of course there are. They just haven't figured out how to use "Turbo Tax" properly.
The greed of the left is all-consuming.
We, the People of the State of California, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, in order to secure and perpetuate its blessings, do establish this Constitution.
“The suit was filed by Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP on behalf of Charles Young, former chancellor of the University of California, Los Angeles, and director of the Museum of Contemporary Art in Los Angeles.”
In other words, somebody who has lived off the government all his life.
It’s one of several actions out here with the same purpose. The unions are trying to get a law passed that makes it illegal for a city to abrogate its labor contracts when it goes bankrupt, and there’s currently a law that mandates arbitration over public safety labor contracts that’s being challenged in the courts. It’s all about keeping those ‘golden geese’ producing.
“The legal theory of the suit, which names the Legislature’s chief clerks as the technical defendants, is that when voters passed Proposition 13 in 1978, cutting property taxes and requiring a two-thirds vote for tax increases, it was a “revision” of the state constitution rather than an “amendment.”
This is the same ruse they tried to use against Prop 8 (the gay marriage initiative) which the CA supremes (to their credit) did not fall for. I can’t believe they’ll fall for it this time either - but you never know.
We still have lights?
Starve the beast and all the parasites that live off it.
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.