CHICAGO (Reuters) - An Illinois circuit
court judge on Thursday indicated that consolidated lawsuits challenging the constitutionality
of a new pension reform law could be resolved by the end of the year given a
State Supreme Court ruling on pension benefits in July. At a status hearing on Thursday,
Sangamon County Circuit Court Judge John Belz gave the state until Oct. 3 to
respond to plaintiff motions for summary judgment and two other motions and
scheduled a status hearing for Oct. 8, according to a court filing.
The public labor union coalition We Are
One Illinois and other parties are seeking an expedited ruling in their
consolidated lawsuits arguing that the pension reform law passed in December is
unconstitutional. They cited an Illinois Supreme Court decision on July 3 in
the case Kanerva v. Weems, in which the court ruled that health care for
retired state workers is a pension benefit protected by the state constitution.
The same provision is the focus of the
lawsuits filed by We Are One Illinois. The new pension reform law reduces and
suspends cost-of-living increases for pensions, raises retirement ages and
limits the salaries on which pensions are based.
"In his comments today, Judge Belz
indicated that he had read Kanerva and that he believes that he can get this
case resolved this year," said John Shapiro, an attorney for the union
coalition. "The coalition plaintiffs and the other plaintiffs are
encouraged by those words that a judgment in their favor will be entered before
long." Judge Belz on Thursday also struck all
other discovery dates in the case from the court calendar.
The state has
contended that its sovereign powers allow it to act in a fiscal emergency.
Illinois has a $100 billion unfunded pension liability and the country's
worst-funded state retirement system. Illinois's credit ratings are also the
lowest among U.S. states. A spokeswoman for Illinois Attorney General Lisa
Madigan did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Since Lisa Madigan did not
respond, this is from a previous commentary I wrote on June 12, 2014:
Lisa Madigan maintains that “In
light of the magnitude of the pension problem and all of the other efforts the
State has made to date [which apparently does not include an effort to
re-amortize the flawed 1995 “Pension Ramp” to pay the debt service legislators
have incurred; reform the state’s defective revenue structure; ensure
corporations pay their fair share of taxes; reduce wasteful spending; and
eliminate tax giveaways for the wealthy elite, corporate CEOs, and millionaire
shareholders of Motorola, Navistar, Mitsubishi, and Sears, to name just a few…,
Senate Bill 1] represents a valid exercise of the State’s reserved sovereign
powers to modify contractual rights and obligations, including contractual
obligations of the State established under Article 1, Section 16 and Article
XII [sic], Section 5 of the Illinois Constitution.”
In other words, the State of
Illinois is declaring a financial emergency and; thus, the State’s preferred
scapegoats—its vulnerable public employees and retirees—must acquiesce to a
coerced, diminished and impaired retirement contract to solve the state's
fiscal problems. This is assumed to be a “relief afforded by the 'Act' [and]
commensurate with the [so-called declared] emergency,” though it is without “a
rational compromise between individual rights and public welfare” (Fliter and
Hoff).
Illinois legislators are not
dealing with a threat to the “public’s safety, health, and morals as well as
peace, well-being and order of the state”; nor are they dealing with an
economic emergency of such magnitude that they are compelled to invoke powers
to protect the state's citizens and, thus, serve a reasonable public purpose or
need.
However, hundreds of thousands of
citizens of Illinois are dealing with a calculated legislative thievery and
despite Madigan’s possible responses, public employees and retirees
are dealing with a violation to the Pension and Contract Clauses, the taking of
property without due process of law and a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment
and the equal protection of the laws.
There is a history of court cases
that have prohibited state legislatures from repealing laws that establish
contractual obligations in this nation. Historically, it is in the interests of
the “public good,” to protect property rights and respect the Contract Clause,
no matter what some Illinois politicians conveniently presume otherwise.
What Illinois citizens can
accurately predict about future contracts with state legislators who believe
they have the “power to interfere with the obligations of contracts [that are]
specifically denied to the states [in Article 1, Section 10 of the U.S.
Constitution]” (Fliter and Hoff) is that if Illinois legislators “can declare an emergency
to exist and abrogate one provision of [both State and U.S. Constitutions]…,
‘this decision serves notice upon [every citizen of Illinois], who heretofore
had trusted in the constitutions for protection and believed in the sanctity of
a contract, that the constitutions are no longer a guarantee nor security
against the abrogation of a proper and legal contract’” (qtd. in Fliter
and Hoff). Read this paragraph again!
“It is difficult for [laypersons]
to understand how even 'rational' interference can be assumed to be among the
reserved powers of the Tenth Amendment [of the U.S. Constitution]” (Fliter and Hoff); it is
also difficult to comprehend that Illinois legislators can continue to choose
which contracts to honor and which ones to violate now and in the future.
Eighty years ago, Supreme Court
Justice George Sutherland stated: “The framers wrote the Contract Clause for
the very reason that they feared emergencies unwisely tempt legislatures to
loosen contract rights… [The] meaning of constitutional provisions [at both
state and federal levels] is changeless; it is only their application which is
extensible… [W]hatever tends to postpone or retard the enforcement of a
contract, to that extent weakens the obligation” (Fliter and Hoff).
Indeed, it
has been said that a state’s “sovereign powers” refer to a general authority of
a government to regulate for health, safety, morals, and welfare of its citizens. Nevertheless, past precedents
show that “state legislatures exercise police power by passing laws in such
areas as crime, land use, infrastructure, lotteries, discrimination, licensing
of professionals, nuisances, schools, and sanitation… State and local
governments… can use police power to enact laws promoting the general welfare only if the laws do not violate
provisions in the U.S. Constitution, including the Contract Clause” (Fliter and Hoff).
Nearly two
hundred years ago, Chief Justice Marshall stated unequivocally: "The power
of changing the relative situation of debtor and creditor, of interfering with
contracts, a power which comes home to every man, touches the interest of all,
and controls the conduct of every individual in those things which he supposes
to be proper for his own exclusive management, had been used to such an excess
by the state legislatures, as to break in upon the ordinary intercourse of
society, and destroy all confidence between man and man.
“This
mischief had become so great, so alarming, as not only to impair commercial
intercourse and threaten the existence of credit, but to sap the morals of the people and destroy the sanctity
of private faith. To guard against the continuance of the evil was an
object of deep interest with all the truly wise, as well as the virtuous, of
this great community, and was one of the important benefits expected from a
reform of the government” (Fliter and Hoff).
It is time for citizens of Illinois to openly resist the way in which the state's
politicians (without moral conscience) have chosen to “regulate public morals and welfare.” It is time to
protest against the liars and thieves who have manufactured a financial crisis;
to remonstrate against liars and thieves who have perpetuated a financial
predicament through irresponsibility, mismanagement and corruption; and to oppose liars and thieves who have ignored moral responsibility and refused lawful remedy for the
financial problems they have created. They have stolen part of the pension you
have earned. They will continue to steal more of your pension in the future.
Fliter, John A. and Derek S. Hoff. Fighting Foreclosure: The Blaisdell Case, the Contract Clause, and the Great Depression. Kansas: the University Press of Kansas, 2012.
Fliter, John A. and Derek S. Hoff. Fighting Foreclosure: The Blaisdell Case, the Contract Clause, and the Great Depression. Kansas: the University Press of Kansas, 2012.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.