|
|
|
March 6, 2008 Volume 4, Number 10 |
||
In This Issue
E-Mail cynthia.davis@house.mo.gov Chair Vice Chair Vice Chair Official Homepage for
Official Government Homepage for your
Look up Missouri House Bills – View Entire Text, Summary, and Last Action Look up
Consumer
Federal Links |
Containing the Third Branch of Government
A river is a beautiful thing. However, a river outside its banks is called a flood and turns from being a beautiful amenity to being a destructive force. This role change describes what may be happening to our judicial branch of government. There are many very fine judges, but all too often we hear about bad decisions in which the judge applied his personal philosophy to arrive at a decision far beyond simply interpreting the law. We are seeing a nationwide trend of judges starting to tax and spend without legislative authority. It is bad enough to see a poor interpretation of a law, but to see judges actually making legislative decisions is way outside their bounds. Observing the tussles between the three branches is like playing the game, “Rock, Paper, Scissors.” What makes the game interesting is that any one of the three can win. Right now, the judicial branch is winning more than the Constitution allows. With
dramatic rises in property taxes, many Missourians are left feeling
confused and overtaxed. Alleviating this situation is a priority for
us in
Even so, we have seen several examples of
appointed judges who have forced local communities and state governments
to enact certain laws or levy tax increases. Judge-imposed taxes became an
issue here in
In
These are just a few examples of judges who exceed
their constitutionally designed powers to make law and levy taxes from the
bench. While state legislators can’t control what federal judges do,
we can ensure
We are proposing a constitutional amendment that
would end judge-imposed tax increases. Voters would have the opportunity
to decide the future of this legislation. Specifically, the
proposed amendment prohibits the Missouri Supreme Court or any other court
of the state from ordering the state, county or city to increase
taxes. The amendment also prohibits any
Around the country and in
Judges do not have the same role in our system as do legislators, and citizens do not have the same opportunity to challenge their decisions. When was the last time you called a judge to tell him what you thought? When was the last time a judge sent you a survey to ask what direction you wanted him to rule? It is difficult to even find a phone number for a judge. In addition, judges can’t see the full picture of the state budget because they do not have the knowledge and experience with the process and its conflicting demands that your elected representatives do.
If all goes well this session, we will put a resolution on the November ballot for you to vote on that will stop judges from being able to order tax increases on innocent taxpayers. Here are the proposed changes to our state constitution: 2. No court shall levy or impose or order the levy or imposition of new or increased taxes, licenses, or fees of any description whatsoever. 3. No court shall order the general assembly or any elected or appointed officer of the state or any political subdivision or governmental agency or authority to appropriate or expend public funds except as expressly approved by legislation or the vote of the people. This subsection shall not be construed to prevent the courts of this state from declaring the rights and obligations of parties under duly enacted legislation appropriating public funds or authorizing the expenditure thereof; nor shall this subsection be construed to prohibit the courts from entering and enforcing judgments concerning lawful contracts or bonded indebtedness of the state or any political subdivision, agency, or authority thereof. 4. Nothing herein shall be construed to limit the authority of the courts to enforce the provisions of article X, sections 16 through 24 of this constitution, nor to enjoin the levy or collection of illegal taxes, licenses, or fees or the expenditure of public funds not authorized by law or contrary to law, nor to order reductions in tax rates in accordance with law. Your thoughts are important to me, so please let me know what you think about this proposal. You can send me your opinion by clicking here: Cynthia Davis. Daylight Saving Time This Weekend
The fall change in time is the one most of us like much better. Even if you don’t like it, most people are completely adjusted to a one-hour change in time within two to three weeks. Here is some helpful information from a web site: http://webexhibits.org/daylightsaving/b.html Date Change in 2007 On August 8, 2005, President George W. Bush signed the Energy Policy Act of 2005. This Act changed the time change dates for Daylight Saving Time (DST). Beginning in 2007, DST will begin on the second Sunday in March and end the first Sunday in November. Spelling and Grammar The official spelling is Daylight Saving Time, not Daylight Savings Time. Saving is used here as a verbal adjective (a participle). It modifies time and tells us more about its nature; namely, that it is characterized by the activity of saving daylight. It is a saving daylight kind of time. Because of this, it would be more accurate to refer to DST as daylight-saving time. Similar examples would be a mind-expanding book or a man-eating tiger. Saving is used in the same way as saving a ball game, rather than as a savings account. Nevertheless, many people feel the word savings (with the letter s) flows more mellifluously off the tongue. Daylight Savings Time is also in common usage, and can be found in dictionaries. Adding to the confusion is that the phrase Daylight Saving Time is inaccurate, since no daylight is actually saved. Daylight Shifting Time would be better, but it is not as politically desirable. When in the Morning? In the
A Little Bit of Humor……
A man charged with assault and
battery insisted at his trial that he had just pushed his victim "a little
bit". When he was pressured by the prosecutor to illustrate just how hard,
the defendant approached the lawyer, slapped him in the face, grabbed him
firmly by the lapels and flung him over the table.
This Capitol Report is a weekly
column by Representative
J If you know of anyone else who would like to receive my Capitol Report, please send an e-mail to Cynthia.Davis@house.mo.gov with the person’s name and e-mail address. We’ll add them to the list. L If you would like to stop receiving
the Capitol Report, email us at Cynthia.Davis@house.mo.gov with “unsubscribe” in the
su
|
|
