* Once again, the Tribune editorial board acts as a mindless propaganda mouthpiece for those who want to reduce pension benefits. This time, it’s a completely one-sided “argument” against the lawsuit over Gov. Pat Quinn’s veto of legislative pay…

Madigan and Cullerton could have promptly called lawmakers into session for an override vote after Quinn’s veto July 10. That would have been two paychecks ago. An override vote is their constitutionally granted check on the executive branch.

But that would have looked bad — lawmakers racing back to Springfield to reinstate their own pay. […]

No one argues that Quinn lacks the authority to reduce budget spending. He has done it regularly and without getting sued by legislative leaders. Two years ago he used his veto pen to cut $11 million for regional school superintendents, $276 million for Medicaid and $89 million for school transportation funding. The legislative leaders are asking Judge Cohen to block Quinn this time because they believe Quinn had improper motives for acting. And if the governor had winked and simply said he needed to reduce spending everywhere he could because the state had a big pension tab due?

Madigan and Cullerton also argue that their members’ salaries are constitutionally protected by a clause that says their pay cannot be changed in midterm. But Quinn argues, convincingly, that the purpose of that clause is to prohibit lawmakers from raising their own pay in the middle of their term. At any rate, he was upfront in his intent: It wasn’t to reduce their pay scale, but to delay their paychecks until they act on pension reform. The lawmakers almost certainly will get back pay, possibly (argh) with interest.

Yeah, it would’ve looked bad. It would’ve looked so bad that they might not be able to muster the three-fifths vote in both chambers to override. And then what? No pay all year, or until another bill approving the salaries was passed. Governors should not have this power.

The Tribune refuses to even consider the fact that if governors are allowed to get away with this sort of thing then it will almost surely happen again and again - and maybe next time the Trib will be on the other side of the issue.

Also, an override attempt would’ve meant no court challenge, and this ought to be challenged. According to the lawsuit, salaries are an individual right, and an individual legislator has no power on his or her own to access those salaries once the veto was issued. Maybe that’s the Tribune’s real problem here. The Madigan-Cullerton lawsuit looks a little too much like a pension reform lawsuit may look in the future.

And, by the way, the Constitution says “change,” not “increase.”

* So far, there’ve been two responses to the Trib’s rant today. First, Madigan’s spokesman left a comment below the editorial…

It is always entertaining when the Tribbies demonstrate how they are bamboozled. Considering an override would make the legislature participants in the Governor’s folly. Hence no vote. BTW many members of the General Assembly await the governor’s list of “yes” votes

Then, an even snarkier one from the Senate Democrats via Twitter, which has since been deleted…

I rather liked that one. Too bad they took it down. Context is here.

       

68 Comments - Oswego Willy - Friday, Sep 20, 13 @ 10:31 am: I just can’t beieve the Trib not seeing the other side. The other “side” is the blatent Seperation of Powers being violated in an extortion of the Executive to get “something” from the Legislative by literally denying the independence of the Legislative to act up the business of government, which you would hope would be in concert with the Executive, but putting in very clear terms, both in act and word, that ONE must be done, for the OTHER to be changed. Glorious Leader Pat Quinn, Populist’s Quinn…”extreme” (Yikes!), is going full frontal assult on the real levers of government that Governor Pat Quinn has no idea how to use, and no use for them when a 3rd World Banana Republic “stunt” is just as “fun” to do when the polling shows it to be good. Remember Blago, and all his bad, and his poor Legistlative relationship as Governor, and even the breaking of the …trust … of the People of Illinois … never … NEVER… broke the trust of the form of government we all enjoy … with “Extortion” of the process of governing, and especially never… took it upon himself to put the Constituional fundamentals of those Seperations in totla jeopardy that the way any … ANY governor after him … could “rule” Illinois like a 3 - Oswego Willy - Friday, Sep 20, 13 @ 10:35 am: …like a 3rd World Dictator, who is 5 minutes away from “seating” a new legislature, becuase Democracy … is hard. The more this “defending” of the Quinn move exists … the more those defending are tearing down the Rule of Law, the Illinois Constituion, and the true Checks and Balances that … Democracy …demands. Pathetic. Shame on all who think the Fundamental arguement of the Quinn move is just … and ir right … If you still feel I am wrong, go stand in the Town Square and wait for the Glorious Leader to come out on the Balcony, in front of Posters of Pat Quinn, and a podium and microphones blaring … “Hail Glorious Leader … Hail your Democracy” - Norseman - Friday, Sep 20, 13 @ 10:48 am: Maybe the Ivory Tower folks would appreciate the Governor using the same tactic to pass an extension of the temporary income tax. - bored now - Friday, Sep 20, 13 @ 10:48 am: abraham lincoln was right — it does hurt poor families. presumably, senators aren’t arguing that they are poor, right??? - Frank - Friday, Sep 20, 13 @ 10:54 am: The Trib’s stance on this issue is the perfect illustration of how deeply they are ensconced in the pension debate — so deep they can’t think clearly. They are not — like most editorial boards — an independent observer, calling balls and strikes on behalf of their readership. They are one of the combatants in the middle of the fray. I had one legislator tell me we’ll know we have the perfect pension compromise if both AFSCME and the Tribune are against it. That’s a dangerous place for a newspaper to be if they care about maintaining even a facade of independence. I think the Trib editorial board should read that interview with Pope Francis that was published yesterday. His push back against strict adherence to dogma contains lots of good advice for them…the most important being: always be humble enough to allow for the possibility you might be wrong. - Just Observing - Friday, Sep 20, 13 @ 10:58 am: === The Tribune refuses to even consider the fact that if governors are allowed to get away with this sort of thing then it will almost surely happen again and again - and maybe next time the Trib will be on the other side of the issue. === Exactly. Maybe next time it will be over abortion or same sex marriage or income taxes. - Small Town Liberal - Friday, Sep 20, 13 @ 10:59 am: - NEVER… broke the trust of the form of government we all enjoy … with “Extortion” of the process of governing - OW, are you freaking kidding me? What do you call shaking down a children’s hospital for campaign cash? Or conspiring to sell an appointment to the United States Senate? Your hysterics over this issue seem to be clouding your judgement, might want to take a step back and have a stiff drink, or something. - Bill White - Friday, Sep 20, 13 @ 10:59 am: I do not “defend” the line item veto. It was a diabolical move that threatens the foundations of republican government. (small “r”) The judiciary should repudiate Quinn’s line item veto as forcefully as possible. IMHO, at least. And yet, I have this lingering suspicion that is exactly what Pat Quinn wants. A judicial repudiation of the line item veto. - 47th Ward - Friday, Sep 20, 13 @ 11:00 am: ===possibly (argh) with interest=== Somebody should tell the Tribune that Talk like a Pirate Day was yesterday. - AFSCME Steward - Friday, Sep 20, 13 @ 11:01 am: Boy did the Tribune get this wrong. He didn’t take an action to delay their paychecks, he vetoed the appropriation to pay them at all. Additionally, now the Tribune thinks it’s OK for them to get interest on their “delayed” pay. The state is broke, but paying needless interest is OK if it in line with an action the editorial board advocates. The interest would bge probably be minimal, but is still unnecessary resulting from an unconstitutional action by Quinn What goofs. “It wasn’t to reduce their pay scale, but to delay their paychecks until they act on pension reform. The lawmakers almost certainly will get back pay, possibly (argh) with interest.” - Federalist - Friday, Sep 20, 13 @ 11:12 am: For a paper to have been in bankruptcy proceedings for years and to then try to talk about any type of fiscal responsibility takes a of gall. The general public could cares less about their editorials and increasingly they have no impact at the legislative level either. The Chicago Tribune is a joke that no one thinks is funny. - Oswego Willy - Friday, Sep 20, 13 @ 11:15 am: - STL - With respect … ===What do you call shaking down a children’s hospital for campaign cash? Or conspiring to sell an appointment to the United States Senate?=== Criminal Acts … that go against the public trust. When the Illinois Constitution is re-written, ever, and there is a provision that reads … “Executive may withold payment of Legislative to force the Legislative to not be an independent co-equal, but and extorted un-equal to do exactly as the Executive demands…” Then I will be overreacting. The fundamental structure of Illinois Government is based on Co-Equal branches. While what Rod did is criminal, shameful, abuse of powers, any and all derrogatory languange we all have used and use consistently to repudiate the Blago times… Rod Blagojevich never made the Legislature a “3rd World Banana Republic Body” Glorious Pat Quinn, if he could “un-seat” this General Assembly and “seat” a new one, what would stop him? The Illinois Constitution, and the Seperate but Equal Branches … that Glorious Pat Quinn seems to think is right or just…just a hinderence that can be manipulated, giving all governors after Pat Quinn that same un-equal… right … that is in complete contrast to Democarcy and to the rule of Government. I stand by every word, - STL -, and I have a great deal of respect for your defense of Pat Quinn … Nevertheless, I stand by my Post. Every. Word. - unbelievable - Friday, Sep 20, 13 @ 11:27 am: That state is in a fiscal crisis that is so bad, we must pass a constitutional amendment to match the state tax code to the federal tax code which is progressive. It is your job to balance the budget and we need more revenue to do that. I hereby veto your pay until you come to your senses and do your job. Your job as legislators is to protect the lives of every citizen you represent. That includes the lives of the unborn, so I hereby hold your pay until you come to your senses and do your job. Illinois is the last state in the country to ban conceal carry permits. We have a 2nd amendment right to bear arms and until you legislators do your job and protect the 2nd amendment that you swore to uphold, I hereby withhold your salaries. The Supreme Court has just ruled that same sex couples should have the same federal benefits that heterosexual couples enjoy when married. Until you legislators do your job and stop discriminating, I hereby withhold your pay. You can go on and on and on and on….it doesn’t matter what side of the spectrum you fall…occupy to tea party, if you don’t like government without proper checks and balances, you should be furious. No governor in 140 years has ever pulled a stunt like this for a reason. Unfortunately we are a part of a generation of people who are the most entertained and the least informed. This is what happens when you don’t teach civics. Basic civics. Not this is a democrat and this is a republican. But what government is and how it works. Sad. - wordslinger - Friday, Sep 20, 13 @ 11:29 am: The Tribbies are the state’s leading advocates of the use of unconstitutional means to screw other people out of their own money. I guess since Zell did it to them, they figure everyone deserves it. - Small Town Liberal - Friday, Sep 20, 13 @ 11:30 am: OW, accepting bribes in exchange for state funding or appointments to vacant seats is extortion of the process of governing. Plain and simple. All this 3rd world stuff cracks me up, do you read the papers or history books? I don’t recall PQ having his political adversaries murdered or imprisoned, but I’ll check again. As to the IL constitution, I believe there’s going to be a ruling on that next week. I’m not a judge nor constitutional lawyer, I’m guessing you’re not either. - Snucka - Friday, Sep 20, 13 @ 11:34 am: Blagojevich quite literally engaged in extortion while running the executive branch of our government. He did it (he believed) in secret and with no intention of allowing the public to ever find out. Quinn took his action publicly knowing full well that the matter will be adjudicated and a public debate would ensue. I agree that his action is questionable in principle, but it is not comparable to Blago’s behavior. - skeptical spectacle - Friday, Sep 20, 13 @ 11:35 am: OW Quinn worse than Blagoyevich? You’ve got to be kidding. OW, you don’t have to write something witty and bombastic every day. I will set the legality and constitutionality aside and let he ISC decide for us as is their role about those issues. That seems to be government working to me. A controversial act has occurred and now the supremes are deliberating. This is how it is supposed to work. And yes, the tribs can be predictable in their proclamations, right or wrong, but I think we all have to agree that there aren’t masses of Illinois citizens out in the streets protesting Quinn’s act. From someone who lives a long way from Springfield, and is incredibly un connected to that whole scene, most average folks think Quinn’s act was on the whole pretty good. We out here in the country don’t understand all the legal nuances and “how things are done around here.” But most of us thought Quinn’s act might be just the thing to try to get the implacable pension problem solved. Again, where are the people out protesting what Quinn has done? 95% percent of the people protesting Quinn’s move read this blog. That tells you something. - Bill White - Friday, Sep 20, 13 @ 11:35 am: @ AFSCME Steward - Friday, Sep 20, 13 @ 11:01 am: You are 100% spot on with this: === What goofs! === “It wasn’t to reduce their pay scale, but to delay their paychecks until they act on pension reform. The lawmakers almost certainly will get back pay, possibly (argh) with interest.” === Pat Quinn CANNOT reinstate those paychecks. Only the judiciary can reinstate those paychecks. As the judiciary must do if we are to retain a republican form of government. - shore - Friday, Sep 20, 13 @ 11:38 am: The ivory tower label for the tribune is about 15 years out of date. Most well educated Democrats now just get the new york times on sunday and most well educated republicans just read the journal. I’m not really sure who reads or cares about the tribune anymore. Their columnists are tired, their editorials bizarre and nonsensical and there’s not much else there. They’ve been off in almost every endorsement they’ve made for major races-andy mckenna! - Nearly Normal - Friday, Sep 20, 13 @ 11:39 am: The Tribune is so pathetic with their rants and raves. Do people really pay attention to their editorials now except to what the Rant of the Day is? I cancelled my subscription two years ago. - Oswego Willy - Friday, Sep 20, 13 @ 11:43 am: ===I agree that his action is questionable in principle, but it is not comparable to Blago’s behavior.=== Let’s be VERY clear… Rod Blagojevich was tried and found guilty of CRIMINAL acts, that the Federal Government proved that those acts were defined as criminal. Pat Quinn’s decision to stop the pay is being argued as a “Constitutional” interpretation by the plantiffs. There is a significant differnece in the relation to Criminal and Co-Equal brances of government in the prism of how the Executive is handling government in both cases… If there were not, who is to say Pat Quinn can’t be arrested if this case goes against him, ruling in favor of the Legislature? See how silly that sounds? This is a case based on Powers, according to the plantiffs. Should they be Co-Equal, or should they be a 3rd World fake legisaltive holding ground waiting for the next extrotion of their “work” for the Glorious Leader? You break the law, its bad. Public trust? Real bad. You decide the Illinois Constitution is getting in the way of what you want so you feel the need to stifle 1/3 of the constutionally required government by extortion? You are then changing Illinois Government forever, and not for the better… Even Rod knew better … - From The 'Dale to HP - Friday, Sep 20, 13 @ 11:44 am: Rich, any clue who’s leading this charge on the Trib editorial board? And would you agree that their ton has changed (i.e. more ideological and vociferously) over the last two or three years? I really don’t recall them being so far off on a limb like this over the last decade or so. - Norseman - Friday, Sep 20, 13 @ 11:45 am: Looks like Quinn apologists are ranting too. - JC - Friday, Sep 20, 13 @ 11:49 am: Why do we have such bizarre people in our political system in this state? Is there some test we could make all candidates take while running for office so we’d know who goes psycho on us after being elected? No one would be talking about fixing the pension funds if goofs (thieves, really) hadn’t mismanaged them for decades. And now we have a rogue governor willy-nilly taking out a tantrum on legislators? I cringe to think of what’s next. In any case, this is how our gallant elected are choosing to spend our tax dollars…….in court. What a joke. - Oswego Willy - Friday, Sep 20, 13 @ 11:49 am: ===I will set the legality and constitutionality aside and let he ISC decide for us as is their role about those issues=== And that … is what makes the rest of what you Post … so Dopey. It IS about the Seperation of Powers …other than that … ===From someone who lives a long way from Springfield, and is incredibly un connected to that whole scene, most average folks think Quinn’s act was on the whole pretty good.=== So ignorance and lack of understanding overrule to constitution? Yikes, good luck with that when trying to have agencies do thoer job too… ===We out here in the country don’t understand all the legal nuances and “how things are done around here.” But most of us thought Quinn’s act might be just the thing to try to get the implacable pension problem solved.=== “Look, we will go against the Illinois constitution … if it polls well!” lol ===Again, where are the people out protesting what Quinn has done? 95% percent of the people protesting Quinn’s move read this blog. That tells you something.=== “Ignorance is bliss .. until THEIR rights are violated, which they are since 1/3 of Government … really should be ruled by another 1/3… You think I am witty, gee thanks! - Oswego Willy - Friday, Sep 20, 13 @ 11:52 am: ===All this 3rd world stuff cracks me up, do you read the papers or history books?=== Only if the history books are in comic book form, narrated by Squeezy, … then no, but I hope to sometime soon. - unbelievable - Friday, Sep 20, 13 @ 11:53 am: “Looks like Quinn apologists are ranting too.” Yes…and willfully ignoring all reason. Not one of them has answered the separation of powers question. “From someone who lives a long way from Springfield, and is incredibly un connected to that whole scene, most average folks think Quinn’s act was on the whole pretty good.” Again…civics. Basic civics. This isn’t about whether you hate the legislature cuz no one likes politicians, so its fun to watch someone stick it to them. The legislature doesn’t work for the governor. Executive, Legsilative, and Judicial. Equal Branches. Another problem with people running for governor thinking they are the CEO of the state. A CEO could just fire everybody. Basic civics. - John Galt - Friday, Sep 20, 13 @ 12:02 pm: First, small point: if something was literally decided by the US Supreme Court, the legislature could not decide just not to observe that decision. At some point the federal government would have to step in and enforce the federal decision–by force if necessary. But as for the rest of the “it’s the governor’s opinion that…therefore no soup for you until you agree with me….” Maybe I’m a moron. But how is it that the response to these can’t simply be 2/3rds of the legislature collectively saying. “We don’t think so.” And just overriding the veto? How is the 2/3rds override NOT “checks and balances” on the system? That’s exactly what the override power was designed to do–check the governor from doing something grossly unpopular with the legislature, no? Other than the unpleasant visual of overriding a governor to get their own pay (which they vote for anyway in the initial legislation–just not in such a glaring public display), there is NOTHING stopping the legislature in each of those scenarios from stopping the governor cold in his/her tracks. Nothing. Or I suppose to be more exact, if there IS something preventing them from getting their pay at that point, it’d be themselves–members of the legislature refusing to vote for a 2/3rds majority. But it wouldn’t the governor at that point. At that point, it’s just that 1/3rd or more of the legislature are too ashamed to vote themselves their own pay–at least not when the media’s & public’s eyes are keenly focused on them doing it. Now, that being said, I could see all types of tomfoolery happening at that point. Wealthy partisan donors for one issue or another (or perhaps wealthy individual legislators, or even group caucus financial accounts) could store up “war-chests” or interest-free loans to ride out the storms. For example, Gov X line-item vetoes legislature pay b/c he wants Y issue to pass. Anti-Y legislators protest and are willing to override the line-item veto. However, since the pro-Y legislators who are in cahoots w/ the governor have a war-chest to drawn down from or interest free loans to access, they are in a better position to ride out the missed paychecks and block any hope of an over-ride. Not dissimilar to how unions might build a war-chest to help weather lack of pay during strikes. But even in that scenario I painted above, two can always play at that game. As long as folks plan ahead, they should be able to insulate themselves from the “starve the other guys out” approach. I guess it could get pretty chaotic, and very irritating. But I still don’t see how the 2/3rds override power is NOT a check & balance on the system. The legislature has the constitutional power to get out from under this. They just don’t like the political optics and thus want the court to do their work for them. - skeptical spectacle - Friday, Sep 20, 13 @ 12:02 pm: OW. Let the Supreme Court do their job. It seems like our government is working pretty well (in this one isolated event, not generally). I don’t necessarily agree with what Quinn did, but it doesn’t matter what I (or you) you think ultimately. OW, I think you are witty a certain percentage of the time, I was merely trying to relieve you of the burden of trying to be witty multiple times per day. It might work out better for you! HeHe It is hard to be surprised and outraged by the Tribune editorials……I mean we know their general political background. Are we getting “outrage fatigue” yet? - John Galt - Friday, Sep 20, 13 @ 12:05 pm: And as to the ’separation of powers’ question–again, how does the 2/3rds override NOT address this? The governor can line-item veto; the legislature can override. Checks & balances. What am I missing here? The only reason the legislature is getting beaten up by the governor on this is because they refuse to use all the tools legally available to them. - skeptical spectacle - Friday, Sep 20, 13 @ 12:06 pm: Unbelievable: In civics I learned that when events which are construed by some to be unconstitutional are enacted, then a process occurs by which the court system analyzes the constitutionality of such act. That is presently occurring, in a somewhat timely manner. - ZC - Friday, Sep 20, 13 @ 12:07 pm: Heh I just told my students literally the other day, it was a useful exercise to read the Chicago Tribune op-ed page, and then to look for a response on Capitol Fax. Maybe some are checking now, thanks for making me look good Rich… - Oswego Willy - Friday, Sep 20, 13 @ 12:11 pm: ===The legislature has the constitutional power to get out from under this.=== that is the battle here, and that is what you are missing; If the Legislature overrides, it gives the legitimacy to the act. they don’t override, all those possibles you came up with, never happen, becuase the issue is not to give legiiamcy to the act, and have the ruling be as such … - skeptical spectacle -, ===It seems like our government is working pretty well (in this one isolated event, not generally).=== “Other than that, how was the play Mrs. Lincoln?” Lastly, I appreciate your concern, but Rich runs a really good Shop, I like to be here, and some days I post, or like yesterday, not much at all. I will leave it up to my descretion, but under the strict belief, as I always do, that I am but a Guest here, and the rules of the Host are what I follow… - John Galt - Friday, Sep 20, 13 @ 12:13 pm: BTW, does anybody have a link to the briefs that were submitted in this case? Maybe I’m just not understanding the constitutional threat here. I’m an attorney, I took con law. And from a distance, I’m just not seeing how this shakes out in favor of the legislative leaders. It’s like an older sibling whining to his parent that his little sibling is beating up on him, when in reality the reason the little sibling is winning is b/c the older sibling simply doesn’t want to use one of his hands that’s he’s voluntarily not using in the fight. Plus, courts generally try to find a way to NOT weigh in on substantive constitutional arguments if they can find a way around it. Having the court say “you have the override power; use it” would be a good way to do that. But again, I haven’t read the briefs so maybe there’s something I’m critically missing. - Oswego Willy - Friday, Sep 20, 13 @ 12:15 pm: - John Galt - Giving the acto that Quinn did, defeats the purpose of the exercise; If they override, every governor from now on, will have that power. It’s not a Democrat thing, a Republican thing .. its a Seperation of Powers and legitimacy of an act that will re-define those Co-Equal branches… Again, relief can not be sought, and then claim that the act was unconstitutional… - Bill White - Friday, Sep 20, 13 @ 12:18 pm: === If the Legislature overrides, it gives the legitimacy to the act. === Exactly right! That said, I still like my inoculation metaphor. Pat Quinn did something so very over the top — cutting off the salaries of legislators for political reasons — I cannot imagine the judiciary sustaining the legality of that move. However, when the IL Supreme Court declares Quinn’s stunt to be a nullity, the precedent set by that decision will influence the future balance of power between the branches and at least influence the pensions debate. - skeptical spectacle - Friday, Sep 20, 13 @ 12:22 pm: OW, You are beloved and an invaluable contributor to Rich’s site. We have all learned a great deal from you. We have laughed with you many times. However, we all don’t ALWAYS agree on everything and we try to never take things personally. - Realist - Friday, Sep 20, 13 @ 12:26 pm: @47th Ward, I rarely literally LOL at posts, but you got me today. Arrrrrr - MikeMacD - Friday, Sep 20, 13 @ 12:28 pm: Illinois Constitution Article IV Section 9 (d) “The Governor may reduce or veto any item of appropriations in a bill presented to him. … An item reduced in amount … may be restored to its original amount in the same manner as a vetoed bill except that the required record vote shall be a majority of the members elected to each house.” I don’t see any exceptions. Perhaps my copy of the constitution is defective. The crux of the problem that I’m seeing is the legal requirement that the Comptroller must match up appropriated monies before issuing a warrant for payment to the Treasurer. The GA can pass a law exempting constitutionally protected salaries from this requirement. This would ensure that this sort of thing doesn’t happen again. The Governors signature is not required as the GA could override any veto, though it would require a three fifths majority. My position is the GA had and has the authority to make this all go away without involving the courts. - Bill White - Friday, Sep 20, 13 @ 12:29 pm: IMHO, Oswego Willy fears that the wily Michael Madigan will skunk the IL GOP yet again. Think Roadrunner and Wily E. Coyote or The Harlem Globetrotters and the Washington Generals Tee times for 4 November 2014 may start filling up fast. - Rich Miller - Friday, Sep 20, 13 @ 12:30 pm: ===does anybody have a link to the briefs === Yep. Subscribers. Hint? - Oswego Willy - Friday, Sep 20, 13 @ 12:30 pm: ===…we try to never take things personally.=== I try not to as well, but … ===OW, you don’t have to write something witty and bombastic every day.=== You referring to another? Look, try not to poke bears, and then apologize when the bears poke back. Don’t say “don’t take it personal” after you direct something at someone. We ALL learn here, me included. How do we learn? Discussion and debate. If you agree, fine, you don’t fine … I can defend my point, as you can, within Rich’s rules, not when you think “everyone has had enough” or how often anyone decides to repond. With repect… - Irish - Friday, Sep 20, 13 @ 12:31 pm: When the appropriation bill for back pay for state employees comes up again I hope the GA remembers how it felt to get their pay held back. How can anyone not understand that this is basically extortion of the legislative branch by the executive branch. And apparently the judicial branch is clueless. Only in Illinois do the checks and balances of the constitution not work. On a related note. Where would the law that states the pay of Illinois elected officials cannot be reduced during their term, come into play? In previous discussions regarding the court case it was stated that until the legislature reappropriated the money they would not get paid. Or would the non reduce law only give them an IOU and the actual money would not come until they reapproped? - thechampaignlife - Friday, Sep 20, 13 @ 12:32 pm: ==Governors should not have this power.== ==salaries are an individual right, and an individual legislator has no power on his or her own to access those salaries once the veto was issued== Perhaps the legislature shouldn’t have this power either. If the governor can’t take away an individual legislator’s salary, the GA can’t either. Therefore, there shouldn’t be a need to appropriate the money because that implies that they have the option not to do so. If they don’t have the option, the Comptroller should just pay it out based on the statutory amount in compliance with the constitutional requirement. - unbelievable - Friday, Sep 20, 13 @ 12:42 pm: What is missing is that salaries are not the same as regular appropriations. The reason that there are constitutional protections for salaries for jobs created by the constitution is because the framers smartly deduced that the temptation to use that lever would be too great in a political dispute. They understood that independence only comes from not being able to be held to political reprisals during the penancy of that job by other branches. We want a democracy, not a monarchy. There was no magic about the original Quinn drop dead date of July whatever, and up until today there is no Quinn pension plan that he is personally fighting for. This is all politics. Crass, populist, politics. He needed to do something drastic and he thinks it worked. Therefore, this is not like reducing the amount of an appropriation to an agency or program. If the Governor is allowed to do this to the legislature, then it is conceivable that he could do it to the judcial branch as well as any constitutional officer in violation of the theory of separation of powers, whenever another branch disagrees with the executive. I see a very real problem with that. For the people who keep trying to find legitimacy in the act…please make your same arguments for any issue other than pensions. I don’t understand what you don’t understand. The interesting thing is no one is noticing that Quinn is running around signing all kinds of legislation that the he touts as important enough for signing ceremonies for bills passed by the legislature when they supposedly weren’t working. “In civics I learned that when events which are construed by some to be unconstitutional are enacted, then a process occurs by which the court system analyzes the constitutionality of such act.” Exactly…thats why this should absolutely be in court and why an override is not the remedy best suited for this situation. - Oswego Willy - Friday, Sep 20, 13 @ 12:47 pm: - MikeMacD - With respect, According to your belief, than what is to say this doesn’t happen every year … The “Four Tops” go to the governor, “Governor, we were real good this year, we voted as you liked, and passed all you wanted, can you make sure we get paid?” Governor says, “I dunno. I didn’t see and Abortion Bill on my desk. Maybe next year, when your slaries are up, I might approve them, but woth out that Abortion Bill on my desk to sign, I can’t see fit to pay you all. See yourselves out, will you…” Extortion of the process becomes legitimate with an override. You don’t give the Executive the opportunity to try this again, by “foiling” it THIS time. The remedy seals the fate for Co-Equal to be Non-Existent. - Oswego Willy - Friday, Sep 20, 13 @ 12:52 pm: - Bill White - You know me too well! Yes, this is not as much about today and Quinn’s action, but far more about tomorrow and every tomorrow after… if they decide to override and give the action legitimacy. - MikeMacD - Friday, Sep 20, 13 @ 1:09 pm: -Oswego Willy- “According to your belief, than what is to say this doesn’t happen every year …” As I wrote, pass a law that exempts the Comptroller from the requirement to match up an appropriation to payment. This would fulfill the “as provided by law” portion of the constitution in the salary clause and the “in accordance with law” portion of Art. V, Section 17. Comptroller and Duties. As is often the case, laws tend to get written in a vacuum and not all situations are anticipated. Now that we see what can happen with the laws as written, well, change them. That’s the job of the legislature. No courts need to be involved. - Oswego Willy - Friday, Sep 20, 13 @ 1:15 pm: - MikeMacD -, Understood. This is also a “smack down” for MJM and Cullerton. Why write a change, when they can seek honest releif and give a “shot” to the Governor for thinking this was “ok”. The game within the game here is also at play because anything less than a “smack down” (override, go around the approp, etc.,) gives Quinn solace in the real governmental arena that Glorious Leader already enjoys with the people on this “polling” stunt. MJM and Cullerton are doing it this way to remind Quinn you can only be a Populist and a Governor at the same time … so far in the actual act of governing(?) - Lord Stanley's Cup - Friday, Sep 20, 13 @ 1:24 pm: @MikeMacD - as long as we’re quoting from the Constitution - let’s do this one too: Article IV, Section 11: SECTION 11. COMPENSATION AND ALLOWANCES “A member shall receive a salary and allowances as provided by law, but changes in the salary of a member shall not take effect during the term for which he has been elected.” Not sure your copy of the Constitution is defective as much as it might be incomplete. Your “fix” for this problem is a good one but it doesn’t change the fact there’s a lack of clarity in the law here and that’s what we use courts for. So to me putting the issue before a judge is appropriate before the legislature would take up a veto motion. - MikeMacD - Friday, Sep 20, 13 @ 1:32 pm: -Oswego Willy- OK. So you recognize this as a game. I’m reminded of a quote I read from the Governor as he commented on the lawsuit when it first came out “…stunt for stunt…” which tells me he thought what he did was a stunt. I would prefer the GA be the adult in this situation and use the powers they’ve been given. Whether you like or dislike (or in your case, STRONGLY dislike) what the Governor did, the constitution looks to be pretty black and white (”…any appropriation…”) on his authority. The courts can’t order the Governor to sign or not veto an appropriation, just like they can’t order the GA to override a veto. I think they can only order the Comptroller to ignore the law as written and issue the warrants for those involved in the case. Just my guess. - Marie - Friday, Sep 20, 13 @ 1:33 pm: It is hard to respect the Tribune these days - Oswego Willy - Friday, Sep 20, 13 @ 1:40 pm: - MikeMacD -, The General Assembly is being the adult here. The General Assembly is seeking this “smack down” becuase Glorious Leader Quinn wanted to play games, and not play Governor. Games do not make this Folly, making games of the Constitutional Seperation of Powers by the Executive for today and all the tomorrows.. makes it very dangerous. The battle is not for the paycheck, who can, who can’t issue a real check, or for pay, back pay, interest. The battle line drawn by the General Assembly is “Extortion by one Co-Equal branch of Illinois Government to do something to be rewarded or reprimanded by their action to the Extortion”… …is the battle line. Its only the Seperation of Powers we are talking about. The rest is just for fodder and “no pay” goofiness to the polled masses. - John Bambenek - Friday, Sep 20, 13 @ 1:53 pm: 1) What happens if the ILGA doesn’t approve a budget? Do legislators have some constitutional right to be paid absent a budget? 2) What happens if the ILGA approves a budget but the Governor doesn’t sign? Same question. While this veto “takes immediate effect”, that doesn’t make the veto final. It’s as if the appropriate is still pending in the ILGA… I still think Thursday the judge comes back and tells the ILGA to override first and then come to court. - cover - Friday, Sep 20, 13 @ 1:59 pm: Imagine if Gov. Rauner (I can’t believe I have to consider that possibility) were to demand that the Dem-controlled General Assembly do his bidding, with the threat of vetoing their pay. If the courts don’t overturn Gov. Quinn’s action, any future Governor, no matter how petulant, will have the opportunity to make the General Assembly a junior partner instead of a co-equal branch. I suspect that Blago would have already pulled this stunt if his ally Emil Jones hadn’t been the Senate President during his tenure. - John Bambenek - Friday, Sep 20, 13 @ 2:00 pm: And someone point to me somewhere in the Constitution where it limits to broad powers of veto a governor has. I mean, something, anywhere. It’d a chump move, I agree. But when in the history of over 2 centuries is there any constitutional law to suggest vetoes can be challenged for constitutionality? - Rich Miller - Friday, Sep 20, 13 @ 2:07 pm: ===I suspect that Blago would have already pulled this stunt if his ally Emil Jones hadn’t been the Senate President during his tenure.=== Each chamber has its own approp lines, so he could’ve lined out the House’s salary approps. That he didn’t does tell us something about Quinn. - Rich Miller - Friday, Sep 20, 13 @ 2:09 pm: ===But when in the history of over 2 centuries is there any constitutional law to suggest vetoes can be challenged for constitutionality? === Where since 1818 has an Illinois governor gone so far overboard on a veto? - AFSCME Steward - Friday, Sep 20, 13 @ 2:11 pm: Unbelievable Excellent point. PQ has been no ideas and all tantrum. “and up until today there is no Quinn pension plan that he is personally fighting for” - walkinfool - Friday, Sep 20, 13 @ 2:30 pm: Agree fully with OW. The Separation of Powers is fundamental to our system of government, and is an overriding principle in all of our State and Federal Constitutions. Arguing about specific citations trivializes this concept. It is clear to me that the judge should throw out Quinn’s action as immediately unconstitutional on its face. To override as if this were a normal line-item veto, would be to avoid, not to repair, the dangerous and unconstitutional breach. If the judge decides that he will wait until the issue is “ripened” by a failed override, or made “moot” by a successful override, then he is either stupidly missing the point, or deliberately avoiding the issue. - Juvenal - Friday, Sep 20, 13 @ 2:49 pm: @Oswego Willy - With all due respect, there is scant difference with regard to separation of powers or the Constitution in this case if you compare it to the General Assembly’s refusal to honor pay raises negotiated between the governor and AFSCME. The General Assembly has argued it is under no obligation to appropriate monies guaranteed by the contract clause of the US Constitution. Now they argue that the Governor is required to approve appropriations they say are guaranteed under Article IV of the Illinois Constitution? you see “separation of powers.” I see “checks and balances”. In either case, this hardly rises to the level of Constitutional crisis. Call me if Quinn ever starts using the police powers of the state to force lawmakers to springfield, as other governors have. - Rich Miller - Friday, Sep 20, 13 @ 2:50 pm: ===if you compare it to the General Assembly’s refusal to honor pay raises negotiated between the governor and AFSCME. === Wrong. There was specific contract language that claimed the raises were subject to appropriation. No such language exists about legislative pay. Quite the opposite, actually. - Juvenal - Friday, Sep 20, 13 @ 2:54 pm: And let’s note with irony that few if any legislators privately object to the notion that a governor can ADD spending to the budget, particularly for a project in their district, to secure their support. - Rich Miller - Friday, Sep 20, 13 @ 2:55 pm: ===few if any legislators privately object to the notion that a governor can ADD spending to the budget=== Not with a veto. That made absolutely no sense at all. - Oswego Willy - Friday, Sep 20, 13 @ 2:57 pm: ===In either case, this hardly rises to the level of Constitutional crisis.=== Until “Governor Rauner” extorts the General Assembly to abolish any and all contracts with ASCME or they won’t get paid … Then others might change their tune … “It’s not a crisis until it effects me!” It’s about the Extortion of one Co-Equal Branch to another Co-Equal branch requiring a remedy with a “reward” that is not the Executives to hold up or give as a bargaining chip. ===Call me if Quinn ever starts using the police powers of the state to force lawmakers to springfield, as other governors have.=== That would be better than taking the IL Constitution and making it a “just” piece of paper when it came to the Powers of the Branches … I don’t have your direct line, would a “blast text” work on the police/legislature thing? - walkinfool - Friday, Sep 20, 13 @ 3:04 pm: Juvenal: Wrong again. This is about Separation of Powers between two branches of government, not about spending or contracts in any way. The pension issues, labor contracts, pork spending, are all red herrings. I do get the frustration with some caring more about the Constitution in some cases, but not in others. - AFSCME Steward - Friday, Sep 20, 13 @ 3:58 pm: Juvenal Totally wrong. There is a constitutional protection that makes each body seperate in our government. This allows each body to operate independently without coercion from the others. AFSCME (or any other State employee) has no such standing. AFSCME is not a branch of government. It is a union that represents state employees. Its negotiated contracts are with the executive branch, but the legislative branch must appropriate the funds. The judicial branch then overruled the legislators & ruled the money is owed. But only some of it has been paid because the rest has not been appropriated. The judicary could at some point order the Comtroller to pay the monies, but that has not occurred. Thankfully I finally received most of my back pay, but in order for the rest to be paid, a supplemental appropriation is required, because, by state law, all monies from the prior fiscal year must be paid out by August 31 of the next fiscal year. Since that date has passed, all left over money owed must be appropriated. Has nothing to do with legislative pay. “With all due respect, there is scant difference with regard to separation of powers or the Constitution in this case if you compare it to the General Assembly’s refusal to honor pay raises negotiated between the governor and AFSCME” - cover - Friday, Sep 20, 13 @ 4:14 pm: Rich @ 2:07 pm, fair point. And for all of the enmity between Blago and Speaker Madigan in 2008, Shirley Madigan was retained at the Arts Council - dumping her probably would have resulted in open warfare. Sorry, comments for this post are now closed.