Tax time movies.  |   Home  |   Rambo

Constitutionality.

In a previous post a commenter asked me to address the question of how court decisions impact enforcement of the law. At issue is the question of why the parents of virtual charter schools have to seek the help of the legislature to keep their schools open after a court decision found their schools in violation of the law; while a federal magistrate’s opinion against The Unfair Sales Act (the minimum markup law) does not prevent the enforcement of the law.

To put it simply, the federal magistrate’s opinion regarding the Unfair Sales Act was not binding upon the state because the state was not a party in the case. Neither the attorney general, nor any state agency defended the constitutionality of the statue, which was a central question in the case. In a letter to the defendant, the assistant attorney general specifically declined to appear but indicated that the state may appear upon appeal (if there is one).

In the virtual charter school case, the state was directly involved. The Superintendent of Public Instruction, Libby Burmaster, managed to be both a co-defendant with the virtual charter schools and an allied with WEAC as the plaintiffs. The court’s opinion is directly binding on the state and the charter schools.

I’ve already addressed WIVA and will get to the Unfair Sales Act in more detail in the coming days… you don’t want me to dump it on you all at once, do you?

 

Posted by Bill Kramer at 1540 hrs
Politics + Politics - Wisconsin

1. If we are questioning constitutionality, I would like to know how the Indian tribes can keep their new games when the courts have specifically said they are illegal.  I didn’t think there was any way craps, poker and roulette were allowed but they still seem to be running those games.  And why can’t gaming be open to anyone wishing to open a casino, with proper licensing and tax collection?
   Rich.

   Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 21, 2008 at 1847 hrs
   
   
   

2. Excellent answer, Bill. You have earned the Chronicle’s endorsement for another term.

   Posted by Huckleberry Dumbell on January 21, 2008 at 1902 hrs
   
   
   

3. sorry, but really didn’t answer anything in your post.  While you may be correct about WVA, you didn’t address why the solution, which means closure, has to be almost immediate.  My understanding is that WVA cannot wait for the legislation to pass, it will be too late. 
   So, why don’t you and your Republican collegues, get off your lazy butts and do something about it NOW!!  Your talk is very cheap, from my humle point of view.  Other than a rally at the Capitol, I have not seen much done by the GOP.  No pressure is being applied.

   Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 21, 2008 at 1922 hrs
   
   
   

4. The rally occured just before an Assembly hearing on AB 697, the bill that the assemblyman was talking about. The committee that heard the bill is going to vote on it on Wednesday and then it will probably go the the full Assembly for a vote shortly after.

   How much faster do you think it could go?

   That is about all a lawmaker can do. They can fix the law or try to again just to have Doyle veto it.

   Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 21, 2008 at 1937 hrs
   
   
   

5. Bill,

   Do legislators have the ability to just stop the game like a ref does by dropping a flag? Can you stand in the way and prevent the schools from being closed?

   Dan seems a bit irked by some kind of inaction, but I don’t know how it all works - is there anything you can do that you are not doing already?

   Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 21, 2008 at 2311 hrs
   
   
   

6. Baumann -

   Rep. Davis and Rep. LeMahieu deserve a lot of credit for (quickly) parsing the Appeals Court’s decision and narrowly focusing the legislation to address the core issues.

   As the commenter above noted, the bill received a quick hearing and Rep. Davis was good to take testimony from all interested parties.  It is scheduled for an Executive Session this week and will be ready for a floor vote shortly after that.

   Not that my legislative tenure is that long, but this is the quickest I’ve seen legislation move and don’t believe it could’ve moved any quicker.

   I always urge people to be patient with the legislative process - if a bill moves too quickly, something is bound to be overlooked.  If it moves too slow, then the impact is lost and opportunities can be missed.

   In short, Assembly Republicans are doing all that can be done to remedy the situation.  The legislative fix has to be done deliberately and promptly; because the court forbade DPI from disbursing aid to these schools, they are at risk of having to shut their virtual doors.

   In my district, iQ Academy is at risk of losing payment from DPI and would be forced to close and would displace hundreds of students.  My singular focus with regards to this bill is that this educational option remain available to parents.

   Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 21, 2008 at 2338 hrs
   
   
   

7. Dan -

   Here is the bill history for AB 697: http://www.legis.state.wi.us/2007/data/AB697hst.html

   For the bill to be credible, you want to build support both with the public and members of the legislature.  I believe the co-sponsor request was open for a week - as is customary.  This allows legislators to sign on and show that the bill has broad support.  Without broad support, odds are that it would have been difficult to move through the process.

   It was then given a prompt hearing - only two days after it was officially introduced.  Wednesday will be the first vote on it - to get it out of committee.  One week to the day after the public hearing…

   To illustrate my point, consider SB 165 (http://www.legis.state.wi.us/2007/data/SB165hst.html).  It was first introduced in April and is just this week going to be voted on in committe in the Senate.  That is a Democrat bill moving through the Democrat Senate…

   We can debate whether or not that is efficient or not, but compared to most legislation, AB 697 a) has broad support and b) offers the best remedy for virtual charter schools.

   Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 21, 2008 at 2352 hrs
   
   
   

8. Thanks, Huck!

   Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 21, 2008 at 2355 hrs
   
   
   

9. Excellent posts Bill.  I have 2 questions:  If the state was not a defendant named in the consitutionality of the minimum markup law, then who was?  With no one named, what is the next step?  Do individual gas businesses have to pay court costs to get the unconstitutionality applied to the law?  If no one is willing to pay, will it ever get enforced all by itself?

   On the WVA ruling, I know it is going through very fast, but assuming a veto, will there be a close down and will it irreparably harm the current schools?  Does anyone know if they are currently closed?

   Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 22, 2008 at 1522 hrs
   
   
   

10. The schools are still operating.

    Posted by hsgbdmama on January 22, 2008 at 1746 hrs
    
    
    

Commenting is not available in this channel entry.