The runaway judiciary

By Tony DiPasquale

Today, we are all too aware that many judges are no longer upholding the law, but in fact legislating it themselves. Even so, no one could have anticipated the brazenness with which the Nevada Supreme Court would usurp their state's own constitution. In a recent case, these judges raised "judicial activism" to a new level when they unabashedly set aside the rule of law and mandated that taxes be raised in order to increase school funding.

In the Nevada Constitution, a two-thirds majority of legislators is needed to pass any tax increase — an idea that may be worth implementing at the national level. This in mind, Governor Kenny Guin, a Republican, was unable to pass a tax increase for his new fiscal budget because some members of his own party refused to support such a measure. So feeling compelled to raid the pocketbooks of Nevada residents, Guin was forced to turn to a willing accomplice, the Nevada Supreme Court.

In a stunning 6-1 decision, the justices concluded that the funding of public schools, also a requirement of the Nevada Constitution, was far more important than maintaining the equally constitutional supermajority needed to raise taxes.

Certainly no one will argue the importance of education — and for the sake of brevity we will not discuss the waste and dismal performance associated with public schools here. But what will happen in the future if a constitutional requirement can be arbitrarily set aside for a perceived need? Again, the Nevada Constitution does require the public school system to be funded in such a matter that maintains access for its residents, but who is to decide what level of funding is necessary to ensure proper access? Should we assume then that under the previous bill many students would have been denied an education, or was it that the slated funding was just not what the educational establishment felt was necessary? My guess is that the latter is the more likely scenario.

I would also imagine that the Nevada Constitution probably mentions that the funding of certain roads falls under the responsibility of the state. Using the court's logic, we would have to assume that funding in this area would be far too important to be left to the legislative branch. I think we can all agree that unsafe roads can be hazardous, especially when school buses are transporting are children on them, therefore taxes here must also be allowed to be raised without the necessary two-thirds majority. See how just a little manipulation can turn a constitution on its head?

Unfortunately, there is no hope that the United States Supreme Court would overturn this egregious decision, as they do not have jurisdiction over state constitutions. This leaves only two possible remedies for this problem — the people of Nevada have to contact their representatives and inform them that if they are unwilling to see that the state's constitution is followed then they in turn will refuse to re-elect them, or an even more emboldened step could be taken to impeach the judges.

The sad truth is that there will most likely be no repercussions for the governor, legislators, or justices involved in this nose thumbing at the Nevada Constitution. Citizens across the country had better take heed — if they do not hold officials accountable on what may seem to be minor infractions, our representatives will only become more encouraged to usurp additional powers.

As apathy is the father of oppression, vigilance is the only way a nation can remain free. We must all remember that to lose our rights requires no work on our part, maintaining freedom is a constant struggle.

© Tony DiPasquale