Suchergebnisse

From yesterday's decision in SaveRGV, Sierra Club & Carrizo/Comecrudo Nation of Texas v. Texas General Land Office, decided yesterday by the Texas Court of Appeals (Corpus Christi-Edinburg), in an opinion by Justice Clarissa Silva, joined by Chief Justice Dori Contreras and Justice Nora Longoria: The Texas Constitution provides that "[t]he public, individually and collectively, has…

On January 1, 2024, the Israeli Supreme Court struck down a constitutional amendment prohibiting judicial review of actions of the government, the prime minister, or any minister based on the "reasonableness" doctrine. The judgment illustrates how societal and judicial vigilance in recognizing "early warning" signals of potential "constitutional capture" may play a significant role in battling such processes. However, notwithstanding this judgment and the halting of the legislative process, the threat of democratic backsliding in Israel persists. The ongoing war has, in fact, paved the way for further anti-democratic measures, some of which were upheld by the very same Court that struck down the anti-reasonableness amendment.

The passage of the appropriations bill by the United States Congress has had major implications for future generations of New Mexicans by providing funding for the state's early childhood education constitutional amendment, which was adopted by the state legislature in 2021 and supported overwhelmingly by voters in 2022. The last step to finalizing the state's…

On both the general election date of Oct. 14 andthe its runoff date of Nov. 18 voters will be asked to approve four
constitutional amendments. Louisianans should grant that approval for all but
the two that address local finances.

Oct. 14, #1 – would clarify current statute
prohibiting elections funding not from direct legislative appropriation,
preventing election outsourcing to private funders whose targeting of dollars
could influence outcomes. Its need is obvious. YES.

Oct. 14, #2 – would elevate from law into
the Constitution and clarify that restrictions to constitutional freedom of
religious worship operate under strict scrutiny. This would prevent any
restriction unless it dealt with a compelling government interest, one narrowly
tailored using the least restrictive means available. This important right
deserves such a safeguard. YES.

Oct. 14, #3 – would elevate the minimum proportion
of declared surplus budget dollars used to pay down unfunded accrued
liabilities from 10 to 25 percent starting in fiscal year 2025, remove a 2029
sunset, and expand its application from the two to four largest pension funds.
This makes good financial sense to prevent future fiscal crises. YES.

Oct. 14, #4 – would allow local authorities
to yank constitutionally-granted property tax breaks to nonprofit organizations
for code violations to noncommercial residential property they own. While
government shouldn't subsidize obviously dangerous living conditions even if
tenants receive this assistance subsidized or free, other legal remedies exist
in local ordinances to ensure safe conditions without inserting into the
Constitution a provision that could encourage politically-inspired enforcement.
NO.

Nov. 18, #1 – would clarify bill veto
deadlines when regular, special, and veto sessions may mix among themselves. Essentially,
if a scheduled veto session would fall during a regular or special legislative
session, lawmakers could consider overriding the bill rejections without
holding a separate veto session with the existing rule that a governor has 10
days after delivery to veto when a session continues or 20 days after it has
been adjourned. The clarity is better. YES.

Nov. 18, #2 – would remove from the
Constitution six protected funds added over the years, five of which haven't
had balances for decades and the other a trivial balance not used in two
decades. There's no need to load up the Constitution with trivial items. YES.

Nov. 18, #3 – would let parish governing
authorities add an extra $25,000 exemption to property taxes for police, fire,
and other first responder personnel living in genuine homesteads in the parish.
This creates an extra financial incentive to fill those positions, but it shifts
property tax burdens to other payers where that could be avoided and the whole
process made simpler by paying higher wages. NO.

Nov. 18, #4 – would tighten eligibility rules
for use dollars from the state's backup reserve fund, the Revenue Stabilization
Trust Fund. Primarily designed for use of tenths of it at a time when it has a
balance above $5 billion for capital outlay, it also can be used even to the
point of emptying with a two-thirds vote. The amendment removes the anything
goes option to make its use when not for capital outlay only when a budget
deficit exists and the primary reserve fund, the Budget Stabilization Fund, has
been tapped to its maximum to avoid a deficit, whereupon this fund could have a
much as $250 million withdrawn per fiscal year. The proportion and minimum
could be changed by law under the amendment. The restrictions remove the temptation
to subvert the purposes of a source for capital outlay spending or for
emergencies to go on spending sprees whenever a supermajority could be reached.
YES.

If the government must "square corners" to protect illegal aliens and convicted criminals, Constitutional protections for Americans deserve consistent application.

Likelihood of prevailing on a constitutional claim may suffice for a preliminary injunction.

Biden still wants to explore the 14th Amendment—but it isn't a presidential authority, and the debt limit doesn't create a constitutional "trilemma."

Yesterday, on September 12th, the Israeli Supreme Court, sitting en banc, heard eight petitions challenging a hotly contested constitutional amendment. The Court has rarely sat en banc in the past, and this is the first time that it sits in a composition of fifteen justices, attesting to the importance that the Court attributes to this decision. The amendment modifies Basic Law: the Judiciary, which protects judicial independence, lays out the process of judicial selection for all the state courts and grants the Supreme Court the authority to supervise state action when the Court convenes in its capacity as a High Court of Justice. In this blog, I will explain each side's arguments and the strategic considerations behind the Attorney General's unprecedented move to push the Court to explicitly invalidate a constitutional amendment. I will show how both sides ultimately found themselves dragged into a game of chicken from which they could not back down.

Coauthor Josh Braver and I argue exclusionary zoning violates the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment.

Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis said he would push state lawmakers to pass four resolutions that would compel Congress to call a "convention of states" aimed at passing state-accepted resolutions as Constitutional amendments. Experts say this would be neither simple nor easy.