What happens if...
What would happen if the Governor refused to enforce a decision of the State Supreme Court. What if the legislature and Governor just refused to either create legislation according to the edict of the court or to act to enforce one of its decisions. For example, the NJSC ruled that schools were not funded properly based on the thorough and efficient clause of the constitution in the Abbott. It then overstepped its bounds and ordered:
Rigorous content standards-based education, supported by per-pupil funding equal to spending in successful suburban schools
Universal, well-planned and high quality preschool education for all three- and four-year olds
Supplemental ("at-risk") programs to address student and school needs attributed to high-poverty, including intensive early literacy, small class size and social and health services
New and rehabilitated facilities to adequately house all programs, relieve overcrowding, and eliminate health and safety violations
School and district reforms to improve curriculum and instruction, and for effective and efficient use of funds to enable students to achieve state standards
State accountability for effective and timely implementation, and to ensure progress in improving student achievement link
So why did the other branches of government allow the court to spend taxpayer dollars. I don't know. It seems to me that the Legislator and the Governor should never have let the court dictate legislative issues. I?'d really like to know what would happen if they refused.
posted by RBM @ 7:50 AM
1 comments
1 Comments:
Ignoring the rule of law, regardless of whether one thinks it is wrong for any reason -- including that a court has overstepped its bounds, is grounds for impeachment or recall (or whatever methods of taking someone out of office) of an elected official.
I agree with you that a court that sits as a legislature has overstepped its bounds. Legislatures make the laws, the executive enforces them and the courts interpret them. But under our constitution, the state supreme court is the final word in interpretting that very document. If the supreme court says that some provision requires something, then that is the rule of law until such time that the constitution is changed.
By allowing the legislature and the executive to ignore a rule of law set by the supreme court would be unacceptable EVEN IF the supreme court has overstepped its bounds. We have methods to cure such problems -- the constitution should be amended in order to cure the problem.
A good example is what happened re: gay marriage in Massachusetts. Many in the state, including the governor, believed that the state's highest court overstepped its authority. They attempted to change the constitution as a result; but they also enforced the rule of law.
The Supreme Court could also choose to find the governor or legislature in contempt of its order and order jail time for anyone who does not comply. Of course since the executive department is the one who would enforce such a contempt order (through the state police or other state law enforcement agency), its quite possible that the contempt order would be useless.
Post a Comment
<< Home