All of society depends on citizens accepting our mutual responsibility to each other to follow the law, or accept the consequences for failing to do so. We live in a democratic republic. We elect leaders to govern within a constitutional framework. We have three branches of government, each serving as a check and balance on the power of the other. Ultimately, though, all power is vested in the People – the collective sovereign “we” – that our leaders are sworn to serve.
As citizens, we don’t get to pick and choose which laws to follow, and which ones we can just ignore. There are a lot of laws on the books that I disagree with. Some are simply annoying – like having to wear an earpiece to use my cell phone in the car. Others are quite offensive – like having to pay an ever escalating tax bill to support a state government whose growth has vastly outpaced population increases. But whether I like it or not, I must follow the law if I wish to remain a part of California society.
The rule of law is taking some major hits, and the perpetrators are the very people who take a solemn oath to uphold the constitution. It is disturbing that so few media voices have criticized those thumbing their nose at the constitution. In fact, many media outlets are praising those who flaunt the law as being responsible. Two examples:
The California constitution says that taxes cannot be increased except by a two-thirds vote of the legislature. It’s a controversial provision, but an important one. It prevents a majority from deciding to enact programs paid for by money taken from the minority. Many Democrats don’t much like this constitutional provision. They’ve found a partial way around it by calling some taxes “fees,” which can be increased by a simple majority vote. But that discredited practice now seems modest in comparison to what is happening to pass legislation to solve the ongoing state budget crisis.
Majority Democrats, frustrated at their inability to convince Republicans to support higher taxes, have decided that the constitution does not apply to them. They’ve gotten their in-house lawyer to issue an opinion that taxes can be raised by majority vote as long as the overall package is “revenue neutral.” With that opinion in hand, they have put forth a budget proposal that raises the state sales tax, increases the income tax and imposes a new tax on all oil extracted from California. (This despite the fact that voters overwhelmingly rejected an oil severance tax just two years ago.). To comply with their lawyer’s direction, Democrats would then offset those higher taxes by eliminating the state sales tax on gasoline. Because the budget package is supposedly revenue neutral, the theory is it can be passed by a majority vote. But why would Democrats want a revenue-neutral budget solution? They don’t. In a separate majority vote bill, they passed a new “fee” of 39 cents per gallon of gasoline. This fee not only recoups the eliminated gas tax, it increases it by a substantial amount.
Governor Schwarzenegger has criticized this budget deal, but for all the wrong reasons. He wants some economic stimulus elements added to the deal before he will sign it. But as to the ill-gotten and illegal tax increases, he told the Sacramento Bee, “I myself say always one thing, and that is, I’m interested in a revenue increase.” The state constitution be damned.
The rule of constitutional law is also under assault by California’s Attorney General, Jerry Brown. As the people’s lawyer, he is charged with defending the laws of the state, including ballot initiatives passed by voters. Proposition 8 restored the traditional definition of marriage by putting it into California’s state constitution. It passed with a 600,000 vote majority. Brown, and most elected Democrats, opposed Prop 8. As is their right, opponents of Prop 8 filed suit challenging the measure as being an improper amendment, arguing that it is really a constitutional revision requiring the legislature to first approve it before voters could cast their ballots. Further, they argue that Prop 8 violates the constitutional separation of powers doctrine. In agreeing to hear the challenge to Prop 8, the California Supreme Court asked the Attorney General and the proponents of the measure to address the revision and separation of powers issues. Both the AG and the proponents said that Prop 8 is not a revision to the constitution, nor does it violate the separation of powers provision. But the Attorney General went on to advance a heretofore unheard of legal argument – that Prop 8 should be invalidated because it violates the inalienable right of gays and lesbians to liberty as set forth in the “Declaration of Rights” clause (Article 1, Section 1, finding that every citizen has an inalienable right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness). So despite the fact that Brown says that Prop 8 is a valid constitutional amendment properly enacted by voters, he takes the position it should be found unconstitutional because, well, gay men and lesbians have a liberty interest in marrying despite the constitutional prohibition. In other words, he doesn’t much like the result of the Prop 8 election so he’s concocted this theory to have things his own way. And he didn’t even need to consult his in-house lawyer for an opinion, since he IS the in-house lawyer.
I wonder what the Attorney General would have to say to the bar owner who argues that he need not collect the state’s alcohol tax because it violates his inalienable right to liberty, or to the business owner who refuses to pay the state’s income tax because if infringes on his inalienable right to happiness?
No matter your opinion of the policies behind the two thirds vote requirement or the constitutional prohibition on same-sex marriage, both of these policies are part of our constitutional rule of law. No elected official is free to ignore the constitution anymore than a bar owner or a business executive is free to avoid their duty to pay taxes.
It is troubling that more in the media are not speaking out to criticize this flaunting of the state constitution. If one disagrees with the constitutional rule of law, the solution is to seek to change it. Eliminate the two-thirds vote requirement, if you wish, by passing an amendment changing it to something else. Legalize same-sex marriage, if you will, by passing an amendment to permit gay marriage.
But it is wrong for politicians to elevate their own views of what the law should be over what the constitution says the law actually is. Doing so is not only illegal, it undermines the legitimacy of government itself.
* * *
Congratulations to the Grant High School Pacers from the Del Paso Heights area of Sacramento. Grant won the state high school football championship, beating Long Beach Poly 25-20 in a thrilling, come-from-behind victory in Carson. Both teams entered the game undefeated, with Long Beach Poly ranked second in the nation. The California Interscholastic Federation (CIF) was roundly criticized for selecting Grant to play in the championship game over perennial powerhouse De La Salle High School. Now CIF officials look brilliant as Grant becomes the first team from Sacramento to win a state football championship, setting the stage for other schools in the area to be considered in the future. The City of Sacramento sponsored a parade for the team yesterday. Given the miserable performance of the NBA’s Sacramento Kings, this is as close as we’ll get to sports excellence.
* * *
Merry Christmas to you and yours. I hope you have a blessed holiday season. For all our political differences, we share one remarkable thing in common: we live in the greatest, most inclusive, most free society in world history. If I were to write this column in China, there’d be knocks on my door from uniformed officers with guns in hand. Actually, they probably wouldn’t bother knocking. May God bless you, and this wonderful country.
# # #
Feel free to share Frank’s Weekly Rant with others by forwarding this article. If you would like to receive your own free subscription, please email Rachel@schubertflintpa.com.
Comments