Marshall Lancaster, writing in the News and Observer says that the judges in North Carolina should rule on laws based on their potential outcome -- and NOT on the actual legality or constitutionality of the laws. In other words, if a law is bad or illegal, but getting rid of it would cost money, the law should be left alone.

His argument is about the North Carolina Lottery. This week a superior court judge is scheduled to hear the lawsuit that has been filed that claims the lottery was passed illegally. I'm opposed to the lottery, but I also happen to agree that the law was clearly passed unconstitutionally. To claim otherwise, as the Democrats and Mr. Lancaster do, is to claim that the lottery will not raise any money for the state.

But that doesn't matter to Mr. Lancaster -- instead his primary reason that the judge should not rule against the lottery is because it will cost some money. He's more worried that the lottery commission would not be able to pay back the money they've already "borrowed" from the state -- and the state would have no way to recover that money (I'm cheering for that outcome).

He also complains that school systems that are "counting on" that money will have to turn to taxpayers for their money. Like most liberals, he cannot even conceive of the most logical alternative -- STOP SPENDING SO MUCH MONEY!

Finally he complains that contractors who are already spending money on the lottery will also sue the state. I'm not sure why he won't consider that the judge can just as easily tell the contractors to get lost because there is no lottery...

So, even though the legislature is clearly exceeding their constitutional authority, we shouldn't stop them because it would result in the state spending less money. Me, I support stopping the state spending money any way I can, so I certainly support stopping them when they break the damn law!

Posted by: Ogre at 02:04 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 337 words, total size 2 kb.