May state legislative applications limit an Article V convention? Subject, yes; specific language, probably not
- September 12, 2013
If you read enough Colorado Supreme Court TABOR opinions, you notice . . . motifs: (1) taxpayers always lose, (2) the court’s opinions are often evasive . . . , and (3) after creating an anti-TABOR precedent, the justices then stretch it to create even more anti-TABOR precedents.
READ MOREThe Colorado Supreme Court has continued its demolition campaign against the Colorado Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights (TABOR) with a new decision further restricting the people’s right to vote on tax increases. This latest decision comes less than a month after the court held the people have no right to vote on a law that re-adjusted sales
READ MOREEach anti-TABOR court decision has become precedent for further anti-TABOR decisions.
READ MOREThe Independence Institute has specific reason to celebrate the nomination of Judge Gorsuch to the Supreme Court. In 2011, a group of anti-TABOR plaintiffs sued in Denver federal court, arguing that TABOR violated the U.S. Constitution because it was inconsistent with the Constitution’s guarantee that every state have a “republican form of government.” (Kerr v.
READ MOREFred Holden (below) and Rob Natelson, both Senior Fellows at the Independence Institute, talk about the famous Colorado Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights in this interview.
READ MORE