Quote of the day
Thursday, Oct 18, 2012 - Posted by Rich Miller
* From a press release…
Yesterday, Senate Candidate John Bambenek joined a dozen other citizens in filing a lawsuit challenging the validity of the state constitutional amendment on the ballot commonly known as Amendment 49 (HJRCA49). The Amendment purports to require a 3/5ths vote for any pension benefit increase. The grounds for the suit are that the form of the question on the ballot and the amendment itself is deceptive, inaccurate and incomprehensible.
“The state constitution is a crucial document protecting citizens from the government. It should not be amendment lightly and certainly not using deceptive and false means by politicians. The ‘notice’ language on the top of the question is simply factually wrong, misleading to the voters and with the amendment text itself not on the ballot, voters will have no idea what they are actually voting for,” said Bambenek.
The notice language, codified in statute reads as follows:
Notice The Failure To Vote This Ballot May Be The Equivalent Of A Negative Vote, Because A Convention Shall Be Called Or The Amendment Shall Become Effective If Approved By Either Three-Fifths Of Those Voting On The Question Or A Majority Of Those Voting In The Election.
“Why is there a mention of a constitutional convention for this amendment? It’s factually wrong and misleading to use scary language to manipulate voters,” said Bambenek.
There are also differing interpretations of what the amendment will actually legally do. According to Professor John Kindt’s op-ed in the Champaign News-Gazette, this amendment would override the pension guarantee clause in the state constitution. Others disagree but there is no real consensus on what the actual amendment does. The amendment is poorly written and incomprehensible to even the experts, much less everyday voters.
* So far, it’s just boiler plate stuff. But then…
“This amendment was written by the Dark Sith Lord Michael Madigan himself with some of the smartest people in the state and they couldn’t write something people could understand? I get that Madigan and his Chicago friends want to stick it to us, but could they do us the courtesy of doing it in a way we can understand? This ballot question and the amendment itself are incomprehensible gibberish,” explained Bambenek.
Heh.
“Dark Sith Lord Michael Madigan himself.”
Nice touch.
- Michelle Flaherty - Thursday, Oct 18, 12 @ 12:12 pm:
Soon the Sith Lord will activate “Order 66″ and the Republican clones will turn on their leaders.
- Anonymous - Thursday, Oct 18, 12 @ 12:15 pm:
Fire Dark Sith Lord Michael Madigan
- Anonymous - Thursday, Oct 18, 12 @ 12:17 pm:
Power! Unlimited power! Such a bad movie.
- wordslinger - Thursday, Oct 18, 12 @ 12:19 pm:
Mr. Bambenek’s “Star Wars” references are deceptive, inaccurate and incomprehensible gibberish.
A Dark Sith Lord? Like there’s a a Light Sith Lord?
There are Sith Lords. They work on the Dark Side of the Force. The Jedi work on the Light Sight of the Force.
Chancellor Palpatine became the Sith Emperor. Darth Maul and Darth Vader were Sith Lords.
Mr. Bambenek’s description of Madigan is factually wrong and uses scary language to manipulate readers.
- John Bambenek - Thursday, Oct 18, 12 @ 12:24 pm:
If you like that quote, you should have seen what was on the cutting room floor.
- Michelle Flaherty - Thursday, Oct 18, 12 @ 12:24 pm:
Prediction:
“Here this case, we will not,” says Champaign County Circuit Court.
- Reality Check - Thursday, Oct 18, 12 @ 12:28 pm:
When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro.
- Anonymous - Thursday, Oct 18, 12 @ 12:30 pm:
It is just sad that the people of this State have had to file so many lawsuits against the people that are making the laws of this State. This suit is a very good thing, this amendment is just plain underhanded. Fire ALL of them !!
- train111 - Thursday, Oct 18, 12 @ 12:38 pm:
As a non-lawyer, I have read the language of the bill introduced by ‘dark Sith Lord Madigan’ and find it pretty tame. Please somebody educate me as to what all the uproar is about.
train111
- Michelle Flaherty - Thursday, Oct 18, 12 @ 12:43 pm:
Train, a U of I prof who doesn’t want any pension reform came up with the idea that if this passes the GA and Gov will be able to undo the pension clause and roll back if not aboloish retirees pensions and current employees benefits via a 3/5ths vote.
And the guy’s a U of I prof so there’s no telling him he’s wrong.
- Cook County Commoner - Thursday, Oct 18, 12 @ 12:49 pm:
Speaker Madigan’s credentials as a Dark Sith Lord are questionable, but as a tactitian they appear formidable. If this amendment passes with the required majority and becomes part of the state constitution, it will create years of litigation if and when a case reaches the state courts clearly impacting the constitution’s pension non-impairment clause, including the judges’ pensions. The judges will side-step the conflict of issue question which should bar them from ruling on a pension issue by instead deeming that resolving a possible constitutional conflict between the new amendment and the pension anti-impairment clause does not present a conflict of interest for them to rule, at least until the constitutional issue is decided. This will take years. Meanwhile, the pensioners will continue to recive COLAs, healthcare and their annuities untouched, and many more government workers will retire out and sign on as new employees.
No Dark Sith here. Maybe analogizing him to the Emperor would be more appropriate.
- Small Town Liberal - Thursday, Oct 18, 12 @ 12:53 pm:
I find JB criticizing confusing constitutional amendments fairly hilarious. I guess it’s only bad if he’s not the one proposing them.
- John Bambenek - Thursday, Oct 18, 12 @ 12:56 pm:
I’d be the first one to tell you that the Putback Amendment was too complicated. If I didn’t have to deal with the “structural and procedural” requirement of citizen amendments, I would have made it much smaller. It was the only way looking at the case law to go from point A to point B.
- Willie Stark - Thursday, Oct 18, 12 @ 1:01 pm:
Personally, I’m just appreciating that Mr. Bambenek is spending his time this afternoon posting on the blog. Watch out Sen. Frerichs!
- Just a Guy - Thursday, Oct 18, 12 @ 1:07 pm:
In 1990 there was a constitutional amendment dealing with tax sales. I guarantee you the vast majority of voters had no idea what they were voting on then.
There are always experts that disagree what an amendment or a law does. Hence there are lawsuits. They should just be honest and say they want the General Assembly to be able to increase pension benefits with a simple majority.
- Whateva - Thursday, Oct 18, 12 @ 1:13 pm:
actually, the controversial language was heavily influenced by the self-appointed pension law expert Eric Madiar Chief Counsel to Cullerton. This amendment has no place in the Constitution. The fact that this debate is happening is reason alone to vote no. Constitutional Amendments should be clear and simple and should avoide gray areas if possible. The sentence that is causing this rhetoric didn’t even need to be in the amendment in the first place. The amendment could have been written like this (I’m not a lawyer)
No action taken by the governing body of a governmental entity that results in the direct or indirect increase in an employee’s pension benefits that are provided under the Illinois Pension Code shall be valid without approval from at 60% of the members of that governing body. This provision shall not apply to an actions that provide scheduled increases in compensation or actions to pass the annual budget of that governing body.
For those critics out there, I whipped this together in 5 minutes, but I would suggest this version is clearly better than the actual proposed language.
- Rich Miller - Thursday, Oct 18, 12 @ 1:18 pm:
===self-appointed pension law expert===
Eric was appointed the expert by Cullerton, not the other way around.
- Merchandise Man - Thursday, Oct 18, 12 @ 1:20 pm:
Is this amendment going to be part of the constitution we are going to enforce, part of the constitution we choose not to enforce, or part of the constitution that is unenforceable?
The answer to that question determines how I’ll vote on it.
- Whateva - Thursday, Oct 18, 12 @ 1:26 pm:
Rich,
We will to agree to disagree on who apointed him to that title. I was a little harsh because he does know his stuff most of the time. This whole debate shouldn’t even be taking place and could have been avoided by not including the “controversial sentence” that is un-necessary.
- Anonymice - Thursday, Oct 18, 12 @ 1:58 pm:
Sith Lord? Seth who?
- WazUp - Thursday, Oct 18, 12 @ 2:15 pm:
…and soon Obi-Wan will arrive to fight the evil Dark Sith Lord Michael Madigan”
Obi-Wan aka Jim Oberweis
- Cheswick - Thursday, Oct 18, 12 @ 2:26 pm:
We could have covered this in a Con Con.
- Pot calling kettle - Thursday, Oct 18, 12 @ 2:46 pm:
Wordslinger has me wondering: If Madigan is only a Sith Lord, who is the Sith Emperor? That’s who the Republicans need to identify and depose. Pretty scary because Chancellor Palpatine was working behind the scenes manipulating folks for a long time before he was identified. It would be someone we would never suspect…perhaps Cross…that would be a prefect ruse.
- cermak_rd - Thursday, Oct 18, 12 @ 2:51 pm:
Pot calling kettle,
I was thinking Edgar, but Cross works, too.
- wordslinger - Thursday, Oct 18, 12 @ 2:53 pm:
–Pretty scary because Chancellor Palpatine was working behind the scenes manipulating folks for a long time before he was identified.–
If Yoda, and Obi-Wan and Qui-Gon Jinn were so smart, how come they didn’t ID Chancellor Palpatine right away? I had him from Jump Street.
- jerry 101 - Thursday, Oct 18, 12 @ 4:26 pm:
Palpatine was a Sith Lord, not a Sith Emperor. There are no Sith Emperors. He was the Emperor of the Galactic Empire, though.
Also, the appropriate term is “Dark Lord of the Sith”
The rule of two: There can be only 2 Sith Lords. One master and one apprentice. The master has the power, the apprentice desires the power. Eventually, the apprentice overthrows the master and the cycle begins anew.