“[A] plain language reading of the Pension Clause’s text makes
clear that governmental entities may not reduce or eliminate a public
employee’s pension payments and other membership entitlements once the employee
becomes a pension system member… Further, the Clause’s prohibitory language
against the diminishment or impairment of pension benefits is cast in absolute
terms and lacks any exceptions…”
We have witnessed recently
a barrage of dishonest editorials that have omitted significant contextual information
about the “Pension Clause,” commentaries that have used misleading analogies and other deliberate
misinformation to foment envy and anger for public employees who have earned constitutionally-guaranteed
pension benefit rights.
To challenge the “Pension
Clause” is to defy common understanding of its legal and moral principles and
to believe that every word in the State and U.S. Constitutions might also be
interpreted in an infinite, fabricated regression of definitions.
There is nothing
transcendental or metaphysical about these 26 words: “Membership in any pension
or retirement system of the State… shall be an enforceable contractual
relationship, the benefits of which shall not be diminished or impaired” (Constitution
of the State of Illinois, Article XIII, Section 5. Pension and Retirement
Rights).
It does not require intuitive
or a priori thinking to justify or verify this claim because we have learned
the English language and the rules governing its use. We know what these words
mean in relation to written, verbal, historical and cultural contexts.
Lexical definitions,
denotations and connotations of the words “diminishment” and “impairment” are
unequivocal. It is not necessary to break down these words into simple constituent
parts unless, of course, we simply misunderstand them because of stupidity,
carelessness, intentionality or maliciousness.
We cannot mistake the
meaning of words such as “shall be an enforceable contractual relationship, the
benefits of which shall not be diminished or impaired” because we understand and
speak the English language. If words in our State Constitution are to refer or mean
anything, they must be commonly understood and accepted as they have been for
decades. Moreover, if words are to refer to anything, they must also be
understood through their use, role, employment and past agreements.
We have before us “the validity
of decades of judicial precedents” that provide “the binding nature of
legislation establishing pension commitments to government employees” (Defending and Protecting Public Employees’ Pensions against the Legislative Siege).
If there is anything else we
might examine regarding the “Pension Clause” and its relationship to a reality
that reveals repeated attempts by the wealthy elite, their politicians and the media
to steal constitutionally-guaranteed pension benefit rights, perhaps we should also
dispute the relentless attacks on the very intelligibility of the
English language by these liars and thieves. We know the
“Pension Clause” is valid because it is understood to be a contractual right
and guarantee that public employees have earned.
Though incompetent,
corrupt politicians and their wealthy benefactors continue to ignore legal and
moral terminologies and court precedents, logical and ethical people understand
the essential history and necessity of the “Pension Clause” and know what it also
means to uphold the State and U.S. Constitutions.
An equally important and unfortunate issue
arises when politicians/lawyers swear an oath to uphold the State and U.S. Constitutions
in one context and then contradict their pledge in another context, made evident
in Attorney General Lisa Madigan’s and Attorney Joshua Ratz’s sidestepping
arguments or attempt to use “reserved sovereign powers” to break a
constitutional contract (The Contract Clause and the State of Illinois’“reserved sovereign powers” in Senate Bill 1).
Logical and ethical people
know that the context which states “membership in any pension or retirement
system of the State… shall be an enforceable contractual relationship, the
benefits of which shall not be diminished or impaired” emerged because “prior
to the [Pension] Clause’s adoption, nearly all public employees were members of
mandatory pension plans that lacked constitutional protection as ‘contractual’
rights and could be adversely changed by the legislature at any time. These
mandatory plans were also underfunded and no better funded than the State’s
five pension systems today...
“[Logical and ethical people know] public employees believed constitutional protection was necessary
because the State had historically failed to make its required contributions
and because employees felt that the State would renege on its obligations
should a fiscal crisis arise…
“[Logical and ethical people
know] the drafters of the ‘Pension Clause’ were aware of the concerns
raised and requests made by public employee groups, the State’s failure to
properly fund the pension system, and the difference in legal protection
afforded to persons participating in a mandatory and optional pension plan.
These concerns, in turn, prompted the drafters to include the ‘Pension Clause’
in the [1970] Constitution…
“[Logical and ethical people
also know] the drafters intended for the ‘Pension Clause’ to (1) protect
pension benefit rights in all pension plans as ‘enforceable contractual rights’
as of when a public employee became a member of a pension system, and (2) bar
the legislature from later unilaterally reducing those rights…” (qtd. in Illinois Pension Clause’s Convention Debates, Text and Historical Background, Eric M. Madiar).
