Rep. Carlyle Gets All 1787 on Tim Eyman

Good on Carlyle. Now, if he would boil that down, and if the democrats would repeat it about 10,000 times, it might start to get thru to the media, who’d then explain these concepts to the voters, and in the end, the voters just might understand that the republicans and eyman are in it to line their own pockets at the expense of ordinary Americans. Through minority rule. But instead of this, our democrats in the state of washington lived under an unconstitutional eyman super majority initiative for years and didn’t have the guts to come out and say what they knew in their minds: this is unconstitutional. so, for political expediency’s sake, they voted time after time again under the 2/3 rule without EVER brining a court case to challenge it. They are so far from doing what Reuven C. does it’s laughable, and they are all so far from doing what’s necessary it’s virtually hopeless.
Meanwhile, a federal judge just said DADT is unconstitutional. Wow. Seems like our national and state democrats can’t even be bothered to stand up for our most basic concepts like majroity rule and equal protection under the law. Really, do we have to start the socialist party just to make democrats have a backbone?
Do we need to start the

Reuven just earned my vote (well, he already had it, but can now consider it earned).

If Gregoire ever leaves, Carlyle?

It’s about time someone articulated in clear concise language, albeit and appropriately so, quoted primarily from the Federalist Papers to repudiate Tim Eyman’s self serving crusade. Good for Representative Carlyle… Hopefully the sycophants who tout Eyman as their hero will understand what damage initatives such as his do to our democracy.

Mark

What would you say about the 2/3 majority required in Congress to propose a Constitutional Amendment? Kind of a 1787 kind of thing…

Good point! Super majorities bring stability, and I don’t understand why people wouldn’t want that in taxes. I’d be all for this amendment if it cut both ways; super majority to cut taxes [aka services], but I’ll be voting no on this one.

But in the end, if the constitution gives the right to the people to create laws through the amendment process, and the majority of the people want this law, isn’t that what it boils down to? Is there anything in the constitution that says we can’t put limits on our elected representatives?

Surely the left liked a super majority in the US Senate when Bush wanted to put judges in. One of the best things I remember hearing on The Conversation on KUOW during the Bush years was a discussion about super majorities in the US Senate and liberals called in to defend it and then Ross Renolds turned it around and asked them about super majorities for school bonds.

I don’t agree with Rep. Carlyle on most things, and I don’t agree with him here, but we could use more legislators like him. By that I mean people who are smart, work hard, care deeply, and are creative. I’ve read his blog too and he’s an impressive guy.

While we’re at it…shouldn’t we rescind the limitations on property tax in the state constitution? Property Tax, including Intellectual Property, is the only tax that should be levied on the populace, as it most accurately reflects the use of Government Services.

A Property Tax is a market driven, user-based tax.

And we certainly don’t want to vote for the 1098. 1098 is Socialism pure and simple.

Here’s a recent pro-1053 column – please consider some of its’ points:

RAISING TAXES SHOULDN’T BE EASY

Three times the voters have approved initiatives requiring either a two-thirds vote of the Legislature or a majority vote of the people to raise taxes. Three times. Yet Olympia took it away this year, despite overwhelming citizen opposition. According to KING 5’s statewide poll, 68% of voters thought it was the wrong thing to do. When asked whether tax increases should require a two-thirds vote or a majority vote, a whopping 74% said two-thirds.

Voters want tax increases to be an absolute last resort.

Read the rest of it here:
http://www.heraldnet.com/article/20100905/OPINION03/709059997/-1/OPINION#Yes.Raising.taxes.shouldnt.be.easy

Cry all ya want Timmy, but you got punked just the same. Nice job, Rep. Carlyle.

Well, Tim, if what voters want is what counts the most, you’d support slavery in 1830 in some states, wouldn’t you?

Blackstone said the rights of Englishman include rights to a gun and rights to parliamentary democracy a/k/a majority rule, and these are fundamental rights used by the people to prevent usurpation of all their other rights. Tim Eyman is against the civil right to have majority rule and one man one vote. (Minority rule means their votes count more than yours — they only need 33.3% + while we need 66.66+. Thus, their votes count for two of ours! Very elitist).

the way democracy isset up in the fedeal and state constitutions is simply majority vote. That’s because votes are equal. eyman is for inequality under the law, and minority rule.

As we wrote in our pro-1053 column:

Opponents say you shouldn’t vote for I-1053 because it’s unconstitutional. They’ve been saying that since 1993 but the courts consistently disagree. There have been three legal challenges to the two-thirds policy and three times the court has dismissed them (the last time was a unanimous vote of the state Supreme Court). As Article I, Section 2 of our state Constitution reads: “The legislative authority of the state of Washington shall be vested in the legislature … 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.” That’s all we’re doing with I-1053.

Read the rest of it here:
http://www.heraldnet.com/article/20100905/OPINION03/709059997/-1/OPINION#Yes.Raising.taxes.shouldnt.be.easy

Last I checked, the state of Wasington had it’s own constitution that addresses these issues.
Could someone explain how Rep. Carlyle’s response to eyman citing the US Constitution and the Federalist Papers is relevant.

There’s a fundamental difference between amending the Constitution and making regular financial decisions for the government.

James Madison could see that. If you’re going to appoint yourself as a historian and a constitutional scholar, surely you can see it too.

The 2/3rds rule has destroyed California. It has produced endless gridlock and an inability to govern.

Yet it hasn’t prevented new taxes. The Legislature approved a tax increase in February 2009 with a 2/3rds vote.

If a majority of voters or legislators want to fund their services, they should be able to do so. What is so wrong with majority rule?

After all, your initiatives routinely pass by a simple majority. If you support a 2/3rds rule for taxes, surely you’d also support a 2/3rds rule for all future ballot initiatives. When can we expect to see you file that initiative?

“…that assaults the moral foundation of democracy itself.”

this has ALWAYS been the end game for clueless, selfish ideologues like eyman and norquist.

The people acting as a legislature are subject to the same Constitutional limitations as the Legislature. Sometimes the courts make mistakes in deciding whether a specific action by either is OK. Remember Plessy (blacks aren’t people), Southern Pacific RR (corporations are people), Citizens United (corporations can buy elections), Bush v Gore (Bush won the election), etc. They’re human. That fact doesn’t make Rueven’s point any less valid, or your “solutions” to governance problems any less stupid.

Because the two documents are cut from the same cloth. The WA version is an echo of the first, and interpretations are often carried from one to the other. What, you think we’re a province of Serbia or something?

“who’d then explain these concepts to the voters”

Uh huh, we voters, so dumb! Fanks for pointing out to us! We dumb!

BTW, considering low voter turn out, getting 2/3 voter support probably means you only have 50% support for a tax raise.

Couldn’t even make it to the second paragraph?

“I stand in defense of our constitution against I-1053′s moral assault upon the great reluctance of our Founders to allow supermajority only in the most extreme structural changes to our republican form of government that are above and beyond any one policy issue of the day.”

Thanks for giving us the opportunity to respond directly to you and your muddled, damaging ideas, Tim! It strikes me that you may need to abandon the “conservative” label, considering your project attempts to fundamentally alter our governmental structure. Why don’t you call yourself a Radical Reactionary? It is accurate AND alliterative (as is this sentence! super splendidly superfluous!).

and, to nit-pick on you because it is fun, your use of the apostrophe is egregious. “its” is already possessive, and putting an apostrophe at the end would seem to make it plural–but “it” cannot be plural as a pronoun referring to a singular thing. darn, sucks to suck huh?

Tim: your link doesn’t prove anything about what the court ruled; you’re linking to your own self serving editorial opinion piece where you fail to make any legal argument at all, and you simply assert in conclusoriy fashion that the minority rule proposal is constitutional.

AS you well know, a court often rejects a challenge to a proposed law on grounds of lack of standing, or ripeness; in particular, the courts do not rule on the validity of an initiative under the constitution until it’s passed with rare exceptions.

Tim, provide the link to the three court opinions that you mention so we can see what they say. I wonder why you dind’t provide that in the first place; I suspect it’s because the courts have NOT ruled that the minority rule provision you want to enact is constitutional.

By the way, I also supsect you have the intelligence to know that your citing the provision for the power to make law b initiative in no way answers the issue of whether the minority rule initiative is constitutional. You’re not a dumb guy Tim. I suspect you full well know that you lack any court precedent on point saying the proposal for 1/3 minority rule is constitutional; so you dodge the issue and misled the public by citing the initiative power which doesn’t even address the issue. That’s as shallow as citing the power of the leg to make laws when asked if a particular law is constitutional. The provision giving the leg the power to make laws doesn’t say anything about whether a law is constitutional and you know it and so your citing the initiative power provision is an attempt to mislead the public, quite likley a deliberate attempt one your part.

You seem to have bought into the deception that Tim wants you to buy into: he doesn’t actually cite any court opinion saying his minority rule initiative is constitutional.

the legal argument is this. When a law or contract or conswtitutiona says one thing, it implies that the non-,mentioned thing is excluded. For example, if it says the right to vote is only for residents of the state of washington, it doesn’t have to then say “and if you’re not a resident that means you don’t have the right to vote”; the exclusion of non residents from the right to vote is implied. Same thing with a contract to buy a horse for $400; this means the price isn’t $401 or $4000 or $1,000,000 and you can’t come into court trying to argue that the price is $1,000,000.

Now the federal and state constitutions SAY that laws are made with a simple majority of the legislature; so that means changing it to 2/3 is a change in the constitution; this can’t be done by initiative but has to be done as per the provision for constitutional amendment. And more: both documents specify 2/3 votes for certain things, eg in the federal constitution for making treaties, indicating all the more clearly that the percent of votes needed to make law can’t be 2.3 without changing the constitition. Rep. Carlyle citing the federalist papers is citing to us the reasoning behind these rules about making laws by simple majority, and basically, it’s the heart of democracy in a representative democracy. And by the way, nearly every other body whether it’s the magnolia garden club or your basic corporation has similar rules; simple majority for most things and 2/3 only for extraordinary type decisions (like selling the whole corporation or changing its bylaws).

BTW if you go with the 1/3 to block taxes provision that Tim eyman is proposing, you’re doing away with equality of voting power as those who want to block it have twice the voting power as those on the other side. They only need 1/3 + 1 vote in the legislature; on the other side you need 2/3 + 1; so it’s both minority rule AND inequality of voting rights. In fact, it’s the most massive de jure inequality you can imagine short of simply declaring that “in the future those who support higher taxes shall be deemed second class citizens whose votes shall be deemed to count only half as much as thoswe of all other citizens.” Or you might as well say “Howver, in the state senate all Republican senators shall have two votes each, and Democrats only one vote each.”

tim also doesn’t explain why if 2/3 is okay why not 3/4 or indeed, unanimity. It’s a radical change to our system he’s proposing and he doesn’t have the guts to come out and admit it.

Still waiting forTim to cite the legal opinions …..

Thanks for the reasoned response rather than name calling.

I LOVE THE SOUNDERS