The governor’s State of the State address and the Supreme Court Chief Justice’s State of the Judiciary address were presented to joint sessions of the Legislature this week. The contrast of tone between the two addresses was dramatic, but both confirmed the imperative to not just “trust, but verify” - an extension of the aphorism “let the buyer beware.”
Chief Justice Mary Russell began her remarks by vigorously confirming the duty of state officials to protect the federal and state constitutions - that is our oath. I hope the Missouri Supreme Court and lesser courts conform to Judge Russell’s remarks. An examination of court decisions, however, may reveal inconsistencies with a constitutional perspective. As citizens, it is our duty to verify that court opinions clearly support our constitutions. As a state senator, my power to hold judges accountable to their oath and to the constitution was completely removed by Missouri’s 1945 constitutional convention. That convention moved impeachment trials from the state Senate to the Supreme Court, even though roughly 80 percent of impeachments in Missouri have been of judges. The balance of the Judiciary report explained steps the courts have been taking to increase access and transparency using modern technology.
The governor’s remarks were much different and confrontational. Given the large legislative majorities in the opposing political party, I found that surprising. Some of the remarks seemed incomplete, ill-informed, or misleading. For example, he claims that Missouri must expand Medicaid or other states would get our tax dollars. Anyone who knows how federal Medicaid moneys are allocated would know that is untrue. If the governor did not know, his staff should have informed him.
The governor bragged about Missouri’s unemployment rate of 6.1 percent and claimed Missouri was doing better than all surrounding states in private sector job creation. The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), however, reports with a longer term view. According to BLS, since 2009, Missouri has lost a total of 23,963 jobs, while neighboring states Oklahoma, Nebraska, and Tennessee have gained 62,000, 40,000, and 111,000, respectively. Missouri’s unemployment number of 6.1 percent does not compare well to Oklahoma’s 5.4 percent, Kansas’s 5.1 percent, Iowa’s 4.4 percent, and Nebraska’s 3.7 percent. Over that period, Missouri’s labor force declined by approximately 100,000 workers. That went unnoticed in the governor’s remarks. Without context, numbers can be deceiving. Trust but verify. In the interest of full disclosure, all the above states have the advantage of being “right to work” states, which may account for their going unmentioned.
The governor promised millions of dollars to kindergarten through 12th grade public education, preschool, and higher education. A colleague turned to me after the speech and facetiously suggested we pass the governor’s budget as is to see his reaction. As tempting as that is, our obligation is to our oath and to the people and supersedes the temptation to call his bluff.
In summary, the liberal theme of cradle-to-grave government was woven throughout the address. From expanding preschool, to coercing students into government preferred professions, to the culmination of central planning in the governor’s challenge to “look out for [Missouri] families as if they were our families” – sounds very altruistic. Nevertheless, I hope many of you agree with me; I do not want government looking out for my family like it was theirs. I want to teach my family the truth about God and creation, about marriage and gender, about individual liberty and economic freedom, about the history of communism and socialism, about life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, about the difference between independence and dependency, about the difference between a government of laws and one of men, about the threat to their liberty government represents if not restrained by the people and their constitution.
The governor’s speech promoted his plan for expanding government and curtailing liberty, for less self-reliance and more government dependence, and it was presented to a chamber filled with many who still love liberty and are bound by their oath to protect it. Maybe that’s why it seemed so confrontational.
2 comments:
He is awfully fond of cloaking himself in his oath to uphold both the state and federal Constitutions....fine....let's take a peek at Article VI of the federal one (Yes! There is more to that critter than the south end of a north-bound Second Amendment!) and we find this:
"All debts contracted and engagements entered into, before the adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.
This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."
Now, strike that first bit -- that just means that the founders were men of honor who were going to pay the nation's debts, no matter what we ended up calling ourselves. The second and third 'graphs, tho, they're the money-quotes, so to speak. That second 'graph is what is known as the "Supremacy Clause" and means that the laws passed by the state lege must be constitutional, even in Missouri. So since Mr. Emery is so fond of shielding himself with his oath, he won't be voting for any blatantly unconstitutional gun nullification bills or proposing any further hinderances on a woman's right to choose. Right? I mean...Oath. Constitution. Duty. Fiscal responsibility.
I was half-joking when I first said we need an amendment to the state constitution that blatantly unconstitutional bills should be defended at the expense of the legislators who sponsored them. I bet we would see a precipitous drop in such nonsense if that were the case.
L1ed
And therein lies the problem. This Twit wants to pass to his children the same stupid misconceptions and ideas that he was exposed to back in the Jim Crow days. Go back to sleep Ed, we will wake you when it is time to vote.
Post a Comment