Today is the day when the State of New York was due to turn in their documents stating why the “message of necessity” used to skip the mandated 3-day wait and push the SAFE Act through to a vote (without any debate or the chance to read the legislation) was constitutional under a “show cause” order from the Appellate Division of the state’s judicial branch. But rather than providing support of their view of the constitutionality of their actions, Governor Cuomo and his cronies argued that the judicial branch has no jurisdiction and cannot interfere with the Legislative and Executive branches (full text here). In short, FOAD. The court will make its final decision on this matter shortly, either handing down the injunction or kicking the can down the road to the next level. Until then, make the jump for Bob Schultz’s response (the plaintiff in this case) . . .
“We have received the State’s response to the Court’s Order to Show Cause. We plan to be at the Appellate Division first thing Monday morning to file a Reply,” said Schulz.
“The essence of the State’s response, is that under the “Separation of Powers” doctrine, the Court should leave the Executive and Legislative branches alone when it comes to the use of a Message of Necessity and this would not render the three day rule meaningless.”
“In essence and especially with regard to controversial issues, the Governor and key legislators want to enact laws quickly, in less than three days, suspending all public discussion and deliberation.”
“We say that the “Separation of Powers” doctrine does not establish a wall of separation eliminating checks and balances between the Judiciary and the two political branches.”
“We hear too often “this is just the way Albany conducts its business, always has and always will.” We are part of a growing movement of people in this state who aren’t as concerned with who we voted for or what party we belong to, as much as what is now happening to our state and our country which very much concerns us. We say “Hogwash” to the Albany status quo and will do everything we can to restore constitutional governance carried out in decency and good order,” Schulz concluded.
I asked them what the next move is, and here’s their game plan:
Next move is a written reply from us on Monday if the Appellate Court will accept it.
Appellate Court may then decide on the preliminary injunction by Thursday. We have also asked our overall Appeal be expedited and are waiting to hear movement on this.
We want to get to the Court of Appeals and get that decision overturned. It can’t be that the Message of Necessity has no arbiter or check on its use. If it is not going to come from the Court, it will have to come from the People!