Invoking Police Powers: Initial Thoughts
In her argumentative response to Sangamon County’s Judge
Belz concerning petitions by We Are One
and other legal teams seeking a stay or injunction on the implementation of SB1
(PA 98-599), Attorney General Lisa Madigan provided a summative assertion of
the legitimacy of PA 98-599, given the State’s Police Powers. In other words, the Attorney General was
invoking the right of sovereignty of the State of Illinois.
Recall that Attorney General Lisa Madigan’s request to Judge
Belz for “Reserved Sovereign Powers” described the state’s overrule of the
possibility of a determination of
PA98-599 being found unconstitutional
or of anyone bringing such a complaint against the state.
“All causes of action asserted in
the Plaintiffs’ Complaint fail to state a claim and are barred because Public
Act 98-599 (the ‘Act’) is a permissible exercise of the State of Illinois’
reserved sovereign powers (sometimes referred to as the State’s police
powers). Plaintiffs cannot sustain their
burden of establishing that Public Act 98-599 is unconstitutional “
All states including Illinois exercise powers of
sovereignty, but to a lesser degree than called for by Attorney General
Madigan. Sovereignty, at its most base and fundamental application is quite
simply the power to forcibly coerce individuals or citizens residing within its
boundaries.
In practice, it is not unusual for any state in the union to
use the lesser aspects of sovereign powers in the name of the greater good: taxation and eminent domain come to mind quickly.
Taxes of course,
taken from earnings or owned properties, are mandated by the state in order to
provide the services and the support required by its citizenry.
Eminent domain,
on the other hand, is the more forcible appropriation of personal property by
the state in order to provide for a public good or benefit; this is usually
afforded acts of “due process” and “just” compensation.
Lawyers often present arguments in scatter patterns, and a
perusal of all 180 argumentative points by both sides before Judge Belz clarify
the full efforts by each side.
While many disputes are presented, in this post on at least
one occasion is considered with the aspects of Eminent Domain appear in various
arguments presented by We Are One legal teams.
In short, We Are One argues the taking of pension benefits falls under
the taking of property.
Furthermore, the term “consideration” has been mentioned
often during disputes over SB1 and even SB2404 (the Cullerton/We Are One Bill
which found little favor by Speaker Madigan).
In fact, there are surface similarities between issues arising out of
Eminent Domain and the current arguments by legal teams defending the
constitutional sanctity of pensioners facing PA 98-599 (aka SB1).
Under an “eminent domain” argument, legal teams (such as We
Are One) have evoked the “Takings Clause” of the Illinois Constitution in
defense of their claim that PA 98-599 is illegal and unconstitutional.
Private property shall not be
taken or damaged for public use without just compensation as provided by
law.
Illinois Constitution Article 1
s. 15.
The Attorney General’s team agreed with the accuracy of the
quote but strongly denied the applicability of the clause to PA 98-599. Evidently contractual promises of income are
not property for the Attorney General’s office.
(they) “fail to state a valid
claim because the affected interests under the Pension Code do not constitute a
private property interest protected by the Takings Clause, the changes in those
affected interests do not result in a compensable ‘taking,’ the financial impact of these changes is a
necessary consequence of the regulatory scheme established by the legislature,
and those changes do not unreasonably interfere with investment-backed
expectations.”
Meaning? In other
words, because a pensioner will not receive it, it cannot be considered a
tangible item to be justly compensated to begin with, nor does the loss of said
non-item provide any greater injury than might be expected under normally
acceptable adverse market conditions.
Such a response may seem confusing, perhaps fallacious. But the very argument for a state (or Lisa
Madigan) to evoke its sovereign “Police Powers” is often an exercise in
circular logic to begin with, and the argument to apply PA98-599 will be just
that.
Augmenting those differences are the extremely pervasive,
coercive, and injurious powers behind a desperate action like Police Powers.
“The revenue power of taxation
and the land control power of eminent domain serve as scalpels of sovereignty,
slicing away bits of human liberty in the name of public necessity; police
power is sovereignty’s sledgehammer, pummeling the subjects into an orderly, if
restricted, pattern of conduct ” (http://janda.org/b20/Lectures/Week
3/PolicePower.htm).
In her counter-arguments to Judge Belz, whether historically
specious or carefully imbalanced, the Attorney General summons what is always
the dogma of police powers: to bring
about and assure the greatest good for the greatest number of people.
Of course, this is the basis for good government to begin
with, and in the case of Illinois, that oath and responsibility has become so hijacked
and bastardized that the Attorney General now finds herself in the embarrassing
position of calling up the most malevolent of state powers to punish citizens
in a specific class to “provide for” others.
In Illinois this action becomes tantamount to washing away a
significant debt by claiming a benefit to the many.
But what may be good to the many is hardly known by Madigan
or anyone else. The many not only
includes only public servants. It may
also include family members and dependents.
It might include another person who holds contracts with Illinois who
wants to see them regarded with some ethical or moral certainty. It may include shop owners or purveyors who
deal with those whose pension provide income.
In fact, the “many” cannot be known. Even when used freely by an Attorney General.
In actuality, the “many” (as one can read over in her
arguments) becomes the bottom line for a legislature frantic to avoid a bill of
their own making.
A state government’s
responsibilities include promoting the general welfare and the securing of the
inalienable rights of those within its borders.
Make no mistake.
Police Powers are exactly the opposite:
A destructive and harsh coercion of a group or class or particular
persons in the name of the many.
Police powers are invoked by the daughter in the father/daughter pension demolition team of Lisa and Mike Madigan. Nepotism, collusion, corruption and dynastic rule are alive and well in Illinois as public education, teachers' unions and pension systems are dismantled - for profit and power.
ReplyDeleteWords, English words, are full of echoes, of memories, of associations. They have been out and about, on people's lips, in their houses, in the streets, in the fields, for so many centuries. Applying right word at the right place is very necessary. To get a hand over vocabulary get in touch with https://vocabmonk.com.
ReplyDelete