Lone Judge Invalidates “All political power is inherent in the people”

by lewwaters

Fringe Democrats, The League of Education Voters and the Washington Education Association have won the first round in the battle to overturn the clearly stated will of the people in Washington State by ruling today that I-1053, the fourth time the people of our state have voted in the 2/3 majority requirement for the legislature to increases taxes as “unconstitutional.”

Our state constitution, Article 1, Section 1 says, “All political power is inherent in the people, and governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, and are established to protect and maintain individual rights.”

Note, it says “ALL,” not some or only part, but “ALL political power is inherent in the people.”

The government receives power from us, not the other way around.

I-1053 passed easily statewide by a 64% vote. In our county, it passed by an even larger margin, slightly over 71%. Even a liberal newspaper as the Seattle Times editorialized, State’s two-thirds rule on taxes should be retained as did our own Columbian with, Two-thirds approval for tax increases is necessary for low-performing Legislature.

Clearly, the people spoke loud and clear on this desire in 1993, 1998, 2007 and 2010.

But, public unions and fringe Democrats like 49th legislative district rep. Jim Moeller, who readily joined the lawsuit to thwart the will of voters, both in the state and his district, have taken it upon themselves to give us the middle finger.

In his ruling King County Superior Court Judge Bruce Heller said I-1053 is a “clear restriction on the Legislature’s power and violates a provision in the state Constitution that outlines whether a law needs a simple majority or a supermajority to pass.”

Hello, that is exactly what the people have been demanding 4 times now! We want restrictions on the legislature, clear and simple.

But those like Jim Moeller don’t seem to care what “the voice of the people” is, unless it is supportive of his view.

Article II, Section 1 of our constitution also states, “The legislative authority of the state of Washington shall be vested in the legislature, consisting of a senate and house of representatives, which shall be called the legislature of the state of Washington, but the people reserve to themselves the power to propose bills, laws, and to enact or reject the same at the polls, independent of the legislature, and also reserve power, at their own option, to approve or reject at the polls any act, item, section, or part of any bill, act, or law passed by the legislature.”

Again, note the use of the word “ANY.” Not some, not partly, not partial, but “ANY.”

The constitution goes on to say the initiative process is “The first power reserved by the people,.”

But public unions rely on fringe activists like Democrat Jim Moeller to ignore that and argue that only they can write law, thereby silencing the clearly stated voice of the people time and time again, based upon Article II, section 22, “No bill shall become a law unless on its final passage the vote be taken by yeas and nays, the names of the members voting for and against the same be entered on the journal of each house, and a majority of the members elected to each house be recorded thereon as voting in its favor.”

Reliance upon this small section eliminates the clearly stated “ANY” and “ALL” in the earlier sections, as far as Moeller and the public unions are concerned, unless of course, it suits their agenda.

Moeller is up for reelection again this year. He has clearly shown his interest is not in representing the people, but doing his own will, the hell with us.

Carolyn Crain is challenging him this election and has stated that when it comes to the will of the people, that is what she will follow. Asked specifically about the lawsuit to overturn the voice of the people on I-1053, Ms. Crain answered,

“I think the people need to express their voice in order for those who are elected to serve them to really know what the people want. If limitations should be placed on any part of the process then it should be at the legislative level. If the people vote for something with an initiative then I think it should be honored, period!”

Moeller, on the other hand, thumbs his nose at us, even those who voted for him in this matter.

I would be derelict to not also point out that the main union responsible for thwarting the will of the people again is the Washington Education Association, the same Washington Education Association promoting and supporting Annette Cleveland, Democrat running to replace the seat being vacated by Craig Pridemore.

As I recently pointed out here, the support relies on “Annette Cleveland will work for tax reform and to preserve state employee pensions.”

That means higher taxes and most likely more legislative support to impose an income tax on us, whether we want it or not.

You can also bank on she would support efforts to thwart the voice of the people in Democrats desire to tax us to death and give what they can to the public unions.

Here again, we have a very experienced candidate running who places the voice of the people above her own, Eileen Qutub.

If you are as tired as I am with our will and voices being cast into a trash can and are ready to restore “All political power is inherent in the people,” we need to elect both Carolyn Crain and Eileen Qutub this election.

Remember who has shown our voices don’t matter; Jim Moeller and Annette Cleveland who says the agenda will be to preserve public union benefits & pensions.

Efforts are already underway to fast track this ruling to the State Supreme Court, so even though those who continue to ignore our voices won this battle, the war is far from over.

A big part of that will be putting Democrats like Jim Moeller out of the legislature.

35 Comments to “Lone Judge Invalidates “All political power is inherent in the people””

  1. I hope this thing goes to the Washington Supreme Court.

    Having said that, I do find it odd that a 2/3rds vote requirement can pass with less than 2/3rds vote!? Shouldn’t a 2/3rds vote requirement require at least a 2/3rds vote? It seems disingenuous & cynical to me.

    Like

  2. If that is what was written in the constitution, martin, I’d agree.

    But it isn’t.

    Like

  3. Oh man this really makes my head spin! I can’t tell you how wrong it is to sue the people you are supposed to represent.
    Hooray for another stage in the justice system! If they had the option to do what they have already done to property and land use rights (they set a one hearing cap w/no day in court) we would not see another day in court on this issue. I would never expect the people to completely agree by 2/3 rds on all issues over 2/3 rds of the time. However, we are asking a couple of hundred people to come together in our best interest and we agree that if 2/3 rds of them can do that then it is probably in our best interest. At least we hope.

    Like

  4. Lew, you, Jim Moeller, and David Madore took an oath to uphold the ENTIRE constitution, not just the parts you agree with. The constitution exists for a reason, and if there were an ability to circumvent it for ANY reason, it would render it meaningless. We need the checks and balances to keep it in place. You, as a Tea Party person, keep saying that we should adhere to the constitution. Now you are saying we shouldn’t? Which is it, Lew? You can’t have it both ways….either you believe in the constitution or you don’t. BTW, nice try at hiding your comments from me on the Columbian. Scared?

    Like

  5. Greg, how do you join Moeller in not seeing that it is he who is not upholding the entire constitution.

    What part of

    “All political power is inherent in the people, and governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, and are established to protect and maintain individual rights” and “The legislative authority of the state of Washington shall be vested in the legislature, consisting of a senate and house of representatives, which shall be called the legislature of the state of Washington, but the people reserve to themselves the power to propose bills, laws, and to enact or reject the same at the polls, independent of the legislature, and also reserve power, at their own option, to approve or reject at the polls any act, item, section, or part of any bill, act, or law passed by the legislature.
    (a) Initiative: The first power reserved by the people is the initiative.

    Is that not clear?

    If upholding the entire constitution is the order, how is it missed where it is indicated,

    “The legislature shall pass the necessary laws to carry out the provisions of section thirty-three (33) {Recall of elected officials] of this article, and to facilitate its operation and effect without delay: Provided, That the authority hereby conferred upon the legislature shall not be construed to grant to the legislature any exclusive power of lawmaking nor in any way limit the initiative and referendum powers reserved by the people.

    I’m not scared of you at all, Greg, you bore the pants off of me with your juvenile antics there and I have little time to play footsie with you.

    Like

  6. Article II, Section 22 of the Washington State Constitution declares:

    PASSAGE OF BILLS. No bill shall become a law unless on its final passage the vote be taken by yeas and nays, the names of the members voting for and against the same be entered on the journal of each house, and a majority of the members elected to each house be recorded thereon as voting in its favor.

    Clear enough for you, Lew?

    Like

  7. To add, any change of this article and section requires a vote on a constitutional amendment, not an initiative. You should be fully aware of this, Mr. Tea Party Constitutionalist.

    Like

  8. So, you accuse me of not following the entire constitution, yet you ignore 3 places where the people are given political power to rely on one.

    Let me point it out again for you, “but the people reserve to themselves the power to propose bills, laws, and to enact or reject the same at the polls, independent of the legislature, and also reserve power, at their own option, to approve or reject at the polls any act, item, section, or part of any bill, act, or law passed by the legislature.”

    Do you miss the word “ANY?”

    You also ignore, “That the authority hereby conferred upon the legislature shall not be construed to grant to the legislature any exclusive power of lawmaking nor in any way limit the initiative and referendum powers reserved by the people.”

    The constitution clearly states the legislature DOES NOT HAVE EXCLUSIVE lawmaking power nor can it take it on, deferring again to the people right to initiative.

    Nowhere does your and Moeller’s line disqualify the people’s right to initiative, but instead lays out how the legislature will pass bills.

    Constitutions limit government, Greg, not the people, except of course, in communist nations.

    Like

  9. And again, your sole reference lays out how the legislature is to pass bills and does not overshadow the people’s right to the initiative.

    Unless we are now a communist state.

    Like

  10. Lew, the process by which a constitutional amendment takes place is clearly defined. To change the constitution takes an amendment. What about that is not clear to you?

    Like

  11. Greg, 4 times now the people have demanded a 2/3 requirement to increase taxes. It was done by legal initiative process, not a proposed constitutional amendment.

    If it does require a constitutional amendment, then it is incumbent upon the legislature to follow the clearly stated voice of the people and get one passed, not launch a lawsuit to deny the people their inherent right to the process.

    This will go before the Supreme Court, bank on it and we’ll see how they interpret it over a lone liberal activist judge.

    But the constitution is very clear that we have a right to the initiative to “approve or reject at the polls any act, item, section, or part of any bill, act, or law passed by the legislature.”

    Like

  12. This is so clearly about the power of the people to govern themselves. We can and we must or we will lose our freedom and tyranny will reign unrestrained. The amendment to stop this charade of the back and forth tug of war over power and control should have been enacted long ago (like at least 2 of these votes on this issue alone ago) but will not happen as long as the people who want to be so powerful are in their positions in Olympia. We have to, this very issue mandates, change who we have representing us in our government.

    Like

  13. I happen to believe that the scales are tipped too far the other way. There are too many legislators and jurists, and the citizens and NGOs who support them (i.e. Unions, etc.), who believe that the only rights the people are entitled to are the rights bestowed upon the people by the government. I think we’ve lost the country and there will be no return to a constitutional government. Even if, by some event, a Republican majority were elected in the US Congress, the White House, and State legislative bodies, because many Republicans are simply the flip side of the same Progressive coin as Democrats, there is no turning back from the course that has been set by Progessives over the past 5 or 6 decades.

    Like

  14. As an accountant, I certainly understand the desire for a balanced budget, so I can see the appeal to Conservatives of a 2/3rds vote requirement. Of course, raising taxes is the other option – but rather than a knee-jerk reaction, I’d rather somebody answer this question…

    If 51% of the population wants “free” stuff (free to them), with all this talk of “Constitution,” “will of The People,” and “democracy” – what’s your argument preventing it? If the majority of the people want to revert back to the Stone-age, why would you think it your duty to stop them? Do you think they aren’t a majority? Is your opinion more valuable than theirs?

    Like

  15. Martin raises an interesting philosophical question. What is a majority and what rights do the majority have? However, I think the question of majority rule is misleading. The United States is not governed by the majority, but by the Constitution – or at least it’s supposed to be. The majority appoints citizens to represent their interests in a bi-cameral body that measures the interest of the executive branch of government against the rule of Contitutional law and makes a judgement in favor of the citizen – or at least it’s supposed to. Unfortunately that hasn’t happened for several decades now because people have abrogated their duties as citizens and legislators have prositituted themselves.

    Like

  16. Martin, do you not see that the example of “51% of the population wants “free” stuff (free to them)” is exactly what has been going on for some time now?

    Jim Moeller says, “Constitutions are established to protect the rights of the minority. Without them, we would be subject to the tyranny of the majority.” http://jimmoeller.org/

    How is it then that so few see that requiring a 2/3 majority vote is in fact protecting the rights of the minority by preventing one party rule in Olympia, since I find it highly unlikely that either party would ever achieve a 2/3 majority?

    Such a super majority thereby requires our elected leaders to work together and compromise, even after knock down drag out fights like our founders went through to write our constitutions.

    A simple majority vote grants one party rule to whichever party holds the majority at the time and has been seen over the past decade, with our state in severe economic doldrums now as a result.

    Like

  17. I’m one of those people who gets taxed a lot and, of course, in my self-interest I’d see that to go down not up, so I’m coming at this purely from a governing pov. The folks who get “free” stuff, like it, and there’s a lot of them. In fact, I’m the minority the Constitution is protecting, not them. I’ll go further and suggest that if all the “free” stuff people actually voted, my taxes would skyrocket, so our representative governing system is protecting me, not them. The 2/3rds tax requirement is for ME not the majority.

    This issue definitely needs to go to the WA Supreme Ct.

    Like

  18. Martin, as a retiree on social security not seeking all sorts of “free stuff,” I too am a minority that the 2/3 super majority would protect over taxation.

    As it is currently, I could easily be taxed out of my home

    Like

  19. “As it is currently, I could easily be taxed out of my home”

    Better keep that on the qt Lew. You don’t want to give Jim Moeller any ideas.

    Like

  20. The likes of Jim Moeller already know that, Craig and don’t seem to care how badly the people are hurting, just push their special interest agenda.

    Like

  21. I think radicals lke Moeller would use any means possible (that they could get away with) to make conservatives like yourself shut up and go away.

    Like

  22. Well, I’m sure they would like to.

    But I am sort of ornery 😉

    Like

  23. By the way Greg Owens, you’re arguing apples and oranges. You’re correct in that Article II, Section 22 is part of the Constitution, but you apply it improperly. The article applies to bills that originate in the Legislature. It obviously doesn’t apply to citizen intiatives – otherwise what would be the point of initiative in the first place?

    Like

  24. Craig Sayre: The initiative determines the requirement needed by the legislature in order to raise taxes. Taxes are implemented by the legislature by way of passing a bill. Article 2, Section 22 addresses this. An initiative cannot change the language of the constitution, which the initiative does, changing it from a simple majority to a 2/3 majority for the legislature to pass the bill to raise taxes. The people have a voice here, and the process by which to pass an amendment are quite clear. This is the process that needs to occur.

    I voted for the initiative; I will vote for the amendment. However, the constitution means something, and to allow a change without the process as determined would undermine the entire document.

    I am afraid that it is you, Mr. Sayre, that doesn’t understand.

    Like

  25. The information on these pages was created by House staff for legislative purposes and is a historical record of legislative events and activities. None of this material is intended to either directly or indirectly assist any campaign for office or ballot proposition. RCW 42.52.180 prohibits the use of public resources for campaign purposes.

    Like

  26. Martin / All, The reason 51% (ideally a larger percent) would vote against “free stuff” is that they are American, love this country, and pray for our ongoing success as the greatest nation. The consequences of the path we have been on are too great. We need a freedom shift that inspires entrepreneurship, the rise of independents, and the renewal of principled leadership.

    Like

  27. Thomas, I hope you’re right, I’m betting you’re right but I’m still committed to the democratic concept that we can vote ourselves over the cliff if we want to and claiming superior rights (2/3rds, etc.) is elitist – the very thing Conservatives hate.

    Your concept of America is great, I love it (I’m a Liberal Democrat), but there are lots and lots of people in this country (and the world) who would disagree. It is your job (and mine) to make sure the supporters of business and entrepreneurship are the 51%. It is not our job to make that number 67% (or any other non-democratic majority).

    p.s. Yes, I know that super-majorities are Constitutional (when they are written into the Constitution).

    Like

  28. “A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world’s greatest civilizations has been 200 years.”
    ― Alexis de Tocqueville

    Like

  29. Ah, but lest you forget we are in fact a republic albeit functioning poorly a lot like a democracy.

    Like

  30. Gotta take the bad with the good.

    But that quote is only supposition. Hopefully, the hearts & minds battle is winable. The biggest threat is Marxists/Progressives/Populists sailing into power on the winds of discontent from lack of jobs – primarily the result of “Free” Trade.

    Like

  31. Did you ever stop and think about that term… “free trade”?
    Never free somebody worked for the product somebody else is getting.
    Even in an even exchange it will never be free somebody has to work for it sooo…
    it begs the question who is doing the work and who is benefitting from the “free” part.

    Like

  32. Carolyn, that’s the kind of insight I’m talking about!

    Progressives, etc. are slipping into power because Conservatives are leaving the barn door open. Clinton signed the first two “Free” Trade agreements, and Obama just signed another one – with Republican support. Democrats because they want to redistribute wealth to the rest of the world and Republicans due to a lack of comprehension of who business is supposed to be benefiting.

    Like

  33. Free Trade Agreements would be a good idea if we were exporting more than we were importing. The problem is, we are not. What happens is that companies are able to outsource jobs to free trade countries (like Mexico) for cheaper labor and import the goods into the US at no additional cost. Until we resolve the manufacturing imbalance with our trade partners, these agreements hurt us significantly in living wage manufacturing jobs.

    Like

  34. Time for an update on this one Lew….

    Wash. Supreme Court to hear tax-limiting case

    http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2018679784_apwataxlawsuit.html?syndication=rss

    The Washington Supreme Court is going to consider the constitutionality of a voter-approved initiative making it more difficult for the Legislature to raise taxes.

    OLYMPIA, Wash. —

    The Washington Supreme Court is going to consider the constitutionality of a voter-approved initiative making it more difficult for the Legislature to raise taxes.

    In an order filed Thursday, Chief Justice Barbara Madsen said the court has agreed to an expedited review of the case. Several legislators and some education groups contend that it is unconstitutional to require lawmakers to have a two-thirds majority in order to raise taxes.

    Voters approved the rule two years ago, and initiative promoter Tim Eyman is asking the public to renew the measure in November.

    A King County judge determined that the law is invalid because the state Constitution indicates that only a simple majority is needed for the passage of tax measures.

    Like

  35. I read that last evening, Bob.

    Regardless of how the Court rules, the only hope left to implement what citizens have repeatedly demanded for so many years is to replace those in Olympia with people willing to do the will of the people.

    If it takes a constitutional amendment, then propose one instead of suing constituents to invalidate our votes as Jim Moeller is doing.

    The Spokesman-Review gave a little more information: http://www.spokesman.com/blogs/spincontrol/2012/jul/12/state-supreme-court-will-hear-super-majority-appeal/

    Heller ruled the state constitution calls for a simple majority, not a supermajority, to raise taxes. The constitution does require supermajorities for some other things, so if the writers wanted it for taxes, they could have put it in at that time, he said.

    Requiring a higher standard through an initiative is unconstitutional, Heller said. So is the requirement that a tax passed with a simple majority go to voters, which isn’t in the constitution.

    Like

%d bloggers like this: