I-1053 Ruled Unconstitutional

by lewwaters

Sure to please Jim Moeller, he has successfully invalidated voters votes

I-1053 Unconstitutional

Undoubtedly 49th Legislative District Representative Jim ‘da taxman’ Moeller is dancing on the floor of the house this morning at this stunning slap down of voters in Washington State that have voted 5 times to require a 2/3 majority vote in order for the legislature to increase taxes.

Moeller, who joined the lawsuit against voters to invalidate constituent votes on I-1053 was elated at the lower court ruling against the citizens of the state. Past tax increases saw Moeller praise them as “a glorious moment.”

Falsely labeling his effort as fulfilling another ruling declaring the states paramount duty to fully fund basic education, Jim Moeller and others like him use their legislative votes to raises prohibitive taxes for any and everything they wish to waste money on, recently advocating another increase in gas taxes, licensing fees, employer taxes and tolls to fund a boondoggle bridge project to force his constituents to pay for extending Portland, Oregon’s light rail into Clark County, even though voters have repeatedly shown they do not want it.

In the 2010 election, I-1053 easily passed statewide by a vote of 63.75% for and 36.25% against. In Moeller’s district, the 49th, it passed with a vote of 66.5% for and 33.5% against. Clearly, voters indicated they want that requirement.

Instead of honoring voters’ intent, the 4th time it was voted in, Moeller joined a dozen other Democrats and the League of Education Voters and the Washington Education Association to invalidate our vote.

In defending his egregious assault on voters, Moeller said,

“I believe that the voters elected the majority (Republican or Democrat, at this time Democratic) to institute THEIR agenda as granted under the constitution and the consent of the governed. Giving power to an UNELECTED MINORITY completely changes our republican (small r) system of government and throws the balance of power under the bus and the people with it.”

In other words, the only vote that matters is what he agrees with, the vote to keep him in elected office and once sworn in, he is free to do what he wishes and not the voters’ wishes. Apparently he ignores that 66.5% who voted that they wanted him to support the 2/3 majority requirement.

Subsequently reelected in 2012 by voters who obviously pay no attention to candidates, since those same voters in 2012 also elected another 2/3 majority vote to increase taxes, I-1185 by a 66.8% to 33.2% vote, Moeller came out even more arrogant that before, boasting to his opponent in the pages of the Columbian, “I bet you like an old rug.”

Our left-leaning State Supreme Court has now sided with unions and Progressive Democrats, ruling against voters that have been demanding such a requirement for 20 years now.

The Court Ruling reads like a very strained rationale relying on Article II, section 22 of the state constitution that reads,

“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.”

This completely ignores Article 1 section 1 that reads,

“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.”

It also ignores Article II section 1 that reads,

“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.

How is it that the government derives their “just powers from the people” and the people have the constitutional right to propose or invalidate laws passed by the legislature if elected judges just decide to thwart that at their choosing?

Democrats, bolstered by public unions and so called education groups have shown that the votes of the people mean little to them, unless it is a vote they favor. Like the 5 times the 2/3 majority vote in the legislature has been approved by voters to be challenged by Democrats and unions and now ruled against, voters also overwhelmingly voted in Charter Schools in Washington State, also under threat now of being challenged in the courts in yet another example of invalidating the voter’s intent.

Our system of governance has been corrupted to the point where the people, that the constitution says all political power is derived from, have little actual say, unless it is agreeable to Democrats. Courts have been stacked to strain laws to invalidate and silence voters when they elect a matter opposed by Democrats.

Our very freedom and liberty is now subject to activist judges who prefer a socialist form of government being instituted by Democrats.

Our only hope is to begin ousting these Socialist elected rulers who place their agenda above the people.

If we cannot get them voted out, a repeat of the 1946 Battle of Athens may come about.

I prefer a ballot box revolution.

You can hear from Justice Jim Johnson in person tomorrow at our Member Legislative Day.Register now - http://myfr.ee/Wiq3lo

You can hear from Justice Jim Johnson in person tomorrow at our Member Legislative Day. 

Register now – http://myfr.ee/Wiq3lo

9 Comments to “I-1053 Ruled Unconstitutional”

  1. I am sure Jim Moeller thinks he’s just grand and he’s dancing in the wings of the house chambers! You have got to help me unseat that man or all of us will have to move out of this state!

    Like

  2. How difficult is it to amend the State Constitution? Not much the Washington Supreme Court could do about that!

    Like

  3. My understanding, Craig, a constitutional amendment requires a 2/3 vote in both the House & Senate before it is presented to the people to vote on.

    Fat chance as long as the very Democrats who sued to invalidate our initiative vote remain in the majority.

    Like

  4. Fortunately, this time the Senate will block House tax increases. And this will be interesting political fodder as the Senate runs amendment legislation in perpetuity just to have the democrats neuter such an effort.

    Like

  5. I’ll take it a step further: using Moeller’s “reasoning,” (Using the term loosely) He has now come out in opposition to the CRC scam.

    After all, if it applies to the scenario he’s lying about (What’s Article One, Section One of our state’s constitution say again, Jimmy?) then doesn’t it apply to the county commissioners as well?

    “I believe that the voters elected the majority (Republican or Democrat, at this time Democratic) to institute THEIR agenda as granted under the constitution and the consent of the governed. Giving power to an UNELECTED MINORITY completely changes our republican (small r) system of government and throws the balance of power under the bus and the people with it.”

    Yeah. Kinda like scum such as Moeller and the rest of the CRC shillers, right?

    Like

  6. Now had the Supremes followed the courage of SCOTUS Chief Justice Roberts, the would have ruled favorably or at least given some legal direction to achieve the intended result. But they do not have such a judicial frame of mind that can see beyond partisan patronage. We need relief from these black robed mobsters.

    Like

  7. ‘Sane, dude, don’t blame the refs. Form a new game plan and get back out on the field.

    (Maybe all the Supreme Court haters could pass an initiative to eliminate the Supreme Court, or an initiative to overrule the Supreme Court by public vote? I got lots of ideas…)

    Like

  8. Hey Martin – You have some interesting topics on your forum. I tried to contact you to get signed up but the email (forums@martinhash.com) got returned.

    Like

%d bloggers like this: