We May as Well not Have a Constitution

Today, the Supreme Court published its long awaited ruling on the tax freeze.  It had to rewrite the constitution to do it:

 When it issued its declaratory judgment order, the district 
court did not have the benefit of our recent decision in Barber 
v. Ritter, 196 P.3d 238 (Colo. 2008), in which we held that a 
statute challenged under article X, section 20 must be proven to 
be unconstitutional beyond a reasonable doubt.  The trial court 
erroneously held that the relevant test of SB 07-199’s 
constitutionality came from the interpretive guideline included 
in the text of article X, section 20 to “reasonably restrain 
most the growth of government.”  Applying this erroneous 
standard, the trial court concluded that:  (1) SB 07-199 
“constitutes a net tax revenue gain to the State of Colorado”; 
(2) SB 07-199 was not a change in state tax policy requiring a 
statewide vote; (3) voter approval was required under subsection 
7(c) of article X, section 20; and (4) the waiver elections held 
in the local school districts did not satisfy subsection (7)(c). 
  We conclude that the General Assembly was acting within 
constitutional limits when it amended the School Finance Act.  
SB 07-199’s treatment of the school districts as the relevant 
taxing authorities for purposes of waiving the revenue limits is 
consistent with the constitutional provisions governing dual 
state/local funding and the constitutional provisions applicable 
to public education.  Interpreting article X, section 20’s 
various provisions harmoniously leads to the conclusion that 
only one election at the school district level was required in 
and the local school district elections fulfilled 
that election requirement.  There is ample evidence to find    
SB 07-199 constitutional and we find the plaintiffs failed to 
show it violated any constitutional provision of article X, 
section 20. 

Note that the Supreme Court has substituted a new standard for what is in the plain text of the state constitution and then used that new standard to find a plainly unconstitutional tax freeze constitutional.

The courts are so far out of control that we might as well not have a constitution in this state.

Comments

[Steven E. Kalbach]

I knew it. Now, what needs to happen is for each district to get out and repeal all the enabling legislation and shove it back into his(Ritter) and HER(That Justices) faces. She needs to be slapped down. Also, while we are at it, it's time to add another amendment that clearly defines what FESS can be used for. It is the only way otherwise we will just have to accept it or someone with plenty of money can try and take it to the Federal level.

[Captain Arapahoe]

The current majority on our state supreme court have no respect for our constitution or the rule of law.
They are a rogue court...
However, they ARE answerable to the people of Colorado. Three of the most egregriously bad supreme court justices (including the most partisan offender, Chief Justice Mary Mullarkey) are up for retention in the next election (2010). The people of this state have the opportunity to throw out the rascals...
Follow this link http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?sm=IjyXQFFpAH8O_2fIvqv47C8w_3d_3d to take a survey on whether the current crop should be impeached or retained...
CPT A