Court checks and balances necessary part of process [UPDATED]Published 11:05am Thursday, August 30, 2012 Updated 2:54pm Friday, August 31, 2012
I cannot believe the Minnesota Supreme Court voted themselves out of the “checks and balances” that our Constitution is supposed to provide, especially when the very stated purpose of both of the proposed amendments is to by-pass the Governor’s office (and potential veto) and take the issue out of the jurisdiction of any court (so we won’t have “legislating” judges).
By this Court’s misguided action wenow have an absolute and unchecked sovereign on our hands in the legislature and are open to a tyranny of the majority.
We fought a great war of independence to free ourselves from the tyranny of an all powerful, unchecked British Parliament (legislature) that wanted to virtually enslave us settlers in America as they had the people in their Irish colony. (It wasn’t King George.
He had no power ingovernment as British monarchs even today do not — British monarchs (as King George then) have no power to levy taxes, conduct foreign, colonial, domestic affairs, raise or command armies).
They are figureheads only. King George had no veto or any means to check the excesses of the Parliament.
This is why the framers of our Constitution gave the Executive the veto — so that legislators would be forced to at least take a second look.
The independent Judiciary is to be a third party referee, and certainly to assure that the rights and privileges of all the people are protected equally without prejudice or discrimination.
This current Minnesota Legislature is partisanly prejudiced and is intending to discriminate and this court let this happen and took itself out of the business of “justice for all.”
I salute Associate Justice Alan Page for his forthright condemnation of the court’s majority.
Colonel Tim Hunt,
US Army, retired