ESA Wants Money From Illinois

ESA President Doug Lowenstein is pushing the state of Illinois to pay for the ESA's substantial legal bills, the result of their fight to defeat the Illinois game ban. From the Next Generation article: "From the day Governor Blagojevich announced that he would seek anti-video game legislation, it was clear to everyone that the proposal would be found unconstitutional and would waste taxpayers dollars in a protracted legal fight that would leave parents no better off ... That is precisely what happened. As we said from the outset, we would have preferred to spend our resources on cooperative programs to help parents ensure their kids play appropriate games, rather than divert money to respond to politically motivated attacks on video games. But the State has left little choice, and this petition is consistent with the rules of the federal courts regarding award of attorney's fees to prevailing parties."

Comments

In case you're wondering

[szembek]

ESA = Entertainment Software Association. Their Website: http://www.theesa.com/

Re:In case you're wondering

[Anonymous Coward]

Whew! I was wondering what the European Space Agency was doing in Illinois.

Re:In case you're wondering

[Rei]

I was thinking the same thing ;) I'm sitting here wearing an "ESA" badge holder from the European Space Agency, so of course that's what came to mind.

Re:In case you're wondering

[Anonymous Coward]

Illinois = Illinois. Their Website : http://www.illinois.gov/

Re:In case you're wondering

[El_Muerte_TDS]

Ok, so what is '=' !?

Re:In case you're wondering

[Wisgary]

while 1:
    print '= ',

Re:In case you're wondering

[Anonymous Coward]

OK, that makes more sense. I was wondering why the European Space Agency were demanding money from a US state.

Re:In case you're wondering

[eam]

= = =. ='s Website: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equals_sign

Done, and done.

[biggyfred]

Absolutely. You want to pass obviously unconstitutional legislation? Your consitutents can pay the bills. After enough money down the tube, perhaps they'll think twice before electing you again.

Re:Done, and done.

[keyne9]

We didn't want to elect him the first time. He was actually the lesser of two evils. Illinois' problem is that we never get politicians running for office that aren't horribly incompetent, morally bankrupt, or otherwise just plain awful.

Re:Done, and done.

[onetwentyone]

It's not just an Illinois thing. Living in Houston, I get to witness the trainwreck that is local politics as Tom DeLay looks likes he's going to be reelected. People don't really learn.

Re:Done, and done.

[Anonymous Coward]

Edgar wasn't bad.

It's just sucked hard since then.

Re:Done, and done.

[Stephen Samuel]

I get to witness the trainwreck that is local politics as Tom DeLay looks likes he's going to be reelected.

So, get your geek friends together and start a campaign....

Re:Done, and done.

[Pig Hogger]

Absolutely. You want to pass obviously unconstitutional legislation? Your consitutents can pay the bills. After enough money down the tube, perhaps they'll think twice before electing you again.

There should be penalties for passing anticonstitutional laws.

Something like barred from office for life for proposing the law, and being kicked-out of office at once for voting for someone else's law.

Re:Done, and done.

[Danse]

We didn't want to elect him the first time. He was actually the lesser of two evils.

The real problem is that our election system doesn't really make elections with more than 2 real candidates feasible. You end up with the Nader dilemma anytime a serious third candidate enters the race. Until we move to a sensible election system, we will continue to have this problem. The problem is that the two parties will fight tooth-and-nail, lie, cheat, and steal to keep the current system. At least with that system they can claim that there is democracy and multiple viewpoints represented. The problem is that there will never be real change as long as we only have two parties. We'll keep switching from one crappy candidate to the next. Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos!

Re:Done, and done.

[nb caffeine]

Anticonstitutional

I like that, sounds much more devious than unconstitutional :)

Re:Done, and done.

[fufubag]

The problem isn't that the two parties won't allow it, it is that the public is way too lazy to and ignorant to check into the viability of any other candidates. Until the extra parties can find a leader capable of pulling together a bunch of brain dead sheep, we will be stuck with two losers every few years.

Re:Done, and done.

[Danse]

it is that the public is way too lazy to and ignorant to check into the viability of any other candidates. Until the extra parties can find a leader capable of pulling together a bunch of brain dead sheep, we will be stuck with two losers every few years.

People don't vote for third parties. The republicans will say "look what happened with Perot! You'll throw away your vote and the Democrats will win!". The Democrats will say "look what happened with Nader! You'll throw away your vote and the Republicans will win!". And so, that is why we need a sensible election system that let's people vote their conscience, and ranks the candidates so that nobody's vote is thrown away. Until we have that, there will always, and rightly so, be the fear of splitting the vote between the two most-favored candidates and thus causing the least-favored candidate to win. What a moronic system.

Re:Done, and done.

[jeffasselin]

we never get politicians running for office that aren't horribly incompetent, morally bankrupt, or otherwise just plain awful.

There are other kinds?

Re:Done, and done.

[Al Dimond]

Oh, yeah, plenty of other kinds. I wouldn't say that Blago's awfulness is due to incompetence or immorality. He is probably the epitome of a "divider, not a uniter" politician, because he is power-hungry, hates everything that he can't control and presents himself as a populist crusader and anyone that holds power that he wants as an "enemy"/"corporate whore"/whatever.

That said, he probably was the best candidate in all the elections he won.

Re:Done, and done.

[XenoRyet]

What we need is for Perot and Nader to run at the same time. If we can keep symmetry in the left/right spectrum, then the "throwing away your vote" aregument carries much less weight.

Re:Done, and done.

[Danse]

What we need is for Perot and Nader to run at the same time. If we can keep symmetry in the left/right spectrum, then the "throwing away your vote" aregument carries much less weight.

That would be nice, but we shouldn't have to rely on that. We should just fix the system.

Re:Done, and done.

[DrEldarion]

Seriously, that's why I moved from Illinois to California - here we have respectable government figures!

Re:Done, and done.

[Ironsides]

Guys, here's a sugestion for getting a serious third party. START AT THE LOCAL LEVEL. Get people as a state and county/town/city legislator and judges. Then get federal congressmen and senators elected along with state governors, then make a play for the White House. Trying to do otherwise is an idiotic move because you won't have any support base.

Re:Done, and done.

[Danse]

Guys, here's a sugestion for getting a serious third party. START AT THE LOCAL LEVEL. Get people as a state and county/town/city legislator and judges.

While local level elections are easier to get a third party into, it still uses the same retarded election system. It still needs to be fixed. And we'd rather not wait 10-20 years to get a candidate into congress or the presidency.

Re:Done, and done.

[Ironsides]

Then continue to expect dissapointment. You need a base level support to get someone into the presidency. That comes from having state and local officials to campaign for your candidate. It also allows your candidate to get some experience and recognition prior to running for president. How many presidents in the past hundred years have not been governors, senators or VPs prior to winning? I can only think of one, Eisenhower.

Re:Done, and done.

[Anonymous Coward]

Furthermore, I would like to see that the act of passing unconstitutional legislation become a crime itself. If a Governer passes a law that a court later finds unconstitutional, they should have to do jail time.
Shouldn't it be illegal to try and break a state's constitition. And if a lawmaker can't recognize that something is unconstitutional, then why the hell are they in that position. I think making it a criminal act would stifle all of this NONSENSE in government.

Re:Done, and done.

[SaDan]

People do vote for third parties. The Mayor of Rockford in Illinois ran as an independant, and won the last election.

Re:Done, and done.

[Sigma 7]

People don't vote for third parties. The republicans will say "look what happened with Perot! You'll throw away your vote and the Democrats will win!". The Democrats will say "look what happened with Nader! You'll throw away your vote and the Republicans will win!".

One third of Canada's population voted for third-parties (counting independants as a party). Not only that, but each vote qualified as a "$1.50" donation to the party - which guarentees that the vote wasn't wasted.

A few elections ago, it was considered newsworthy that 2% of the votes were achieved by the Marijuana party. While individual votes might not matter, enough of them will raise eyebrows.

And so, that is why we need a sensible election system that let's people vote their conscience, and ranks the candidates so that nobody's vote is thrown away.

The US already has such a system.

First off, take a look at all parties and candidates that you are capable of voting for. You can instantly dismiss parties that don't at least have a webpage up, as well as parties that do not have sufficient political penetration.

Next, take a look at the party's platforms. If a BS-O-Meter runs too high, if their policies highly conflict with your opinions, or if they are known to be too negative, don't vote for that party. With all the parties remaining, you should have no trouble making your decision.

This is how I vote in the elections, and it has worked for me every time. While I don't vote for my conscience every time, it is extremely good for Tactical Voting - especially when you rank the remaining parties equally (which means tactical voting isn't a moral problem for you.)

  Until we have that, there will always, and rightly so, be the fear of splitting the vote between the two most-favored candidates and thus causing the least-favored candidate to win. What a moronic system.

Re:Done, and done.

[Guppy06]

No, the judge will be unelected. The legislators will get re-elected for having the "courage" to "stand up" to those "evil out-of-state game companies trying to corrupt our children." The incumbents will ride in on the martyrdom ticket.

Re:Done, and done.

[Danse]

None of that matters. It doesn't take magic to become a president. Currently it mostly just takes an assload of cash and promises to the right people. Even someone like Wesley Clark would have been a decent choice for president probably. If he or someone else could run independently of the parties, and therefore not have to sell their souls in the primaries, they could get elected. That would require that we change the election system though so that we don't have the damn vote-splitting problems.

Re:Done, and done.

[Danse]

Tactical voting is all well and good, but it's a band-aid on a system that is broken by design. People shouldn't have to try to calculate who is more likely to win a certain race, and there shouldn't have to be coordination on a large scale like some of the examples given in that wiki. Having people simply rank their choices on the ballot would fix the whole problem quite easily. No one throws away their vote by voting their conscience, and it doesn't require the coordination or strange and error-prone calculations that tactical voting does. It's a much simpler system. So while I agree that tactical voting is a necessary temporary patch on the system, it's certainly doesn't make the system any better.

Re:Done, and done.

[ssimontis]

The government forgets its purpose all the time. Government is supposed to be an institution to protect our rights. How many bills today are supposed to protect our rights? Some of them just push around special interests of congressmen. The government is not the moral police. It is up to parents to determine what games their kids play. Unfortunately, there are a lot of lazy parents. But the government cannot provide the moral direction they feel is necessary. That was never its purpose, but somehow, today that has become the role of government.

Illinois

[Pranadevil2k]

I live in Illinois, and we're a damn poor state. The politicians can't have a press conference without saying something about how far in debt we are. That said, I'm not sure what side of this I'm on. Our governor was a total idiot for introducing the bill in the first place, and the ESA is right that most of the time when someone loses a lawsuit they have to pay the legal fees associated with the case... but we've already wasted taxpayer dollars on the bill itself and the court costs. Now they're asking for more money. I guess my state just needs to learn how to not be stupid.

Re:Illinois

[MjrTom]

I'm in Illinois too. The state may be hurting for cash, but the politicos shure aren't. I think that maybe a bill forcing politicians who pass unconstitutional laws to pay the legal bills associated with striking those laws down.

Of course that law would also be unconstitutional, so I guess that it would never fly.

Re:Illinois

[el_diavalo]

I guess my state just needs to learn how to not be stupid. Hi. I live in New Orleans. My state wins.

Re:Illinois

[LLuthor]

Being in debt is the best way to learn how to manage money properly.

When the politicians involved have to deal with smaller bugdets and large debts they will be better at managing money in the future and likely spend less on frivolous laws. That is, unless the population of the state agress with the law in question, in which case this kind of thing will continue indefinitely.

Re:Illinois

[sqlrob]

Actually, I'd like to see a federal law where if you propose an unconstitutional law, or vote for enough of them, you are banned completely from politics.

Re:Illinois

[dual_boot_brain]

Except, the politicians are not in debt, they are not spending or managing their money. They externalize the costs of their decisions to the taxpayers. This is Similar to the 'public commons' problem except it is the tax payers money instead of communal land that effected. Maybe government budgets need to be reorganized such that the budget is analyzed on a bi-weekly basis and if there is money left over, then and only then do the politicians get paid. Bi-weekly budget shortfall? Sorry kids its Tuna Helper all week long ... sans Tuna.

Re:Illinois

[plague3106]

Of course that law would also be unconstitutional, so I guess that it would never fly.

How would such a law be unconstitutional?

Re:Illinois

[Anonymous Coward]

Stupidity is it's own punishment. Sometimes it is necessary to make it glaringly obvious.

Re:Illinois

[jcorno]

I think that maybe a bill forcing politicians who pass unconstitutional laws to pay the legal bills associated with striking those laws down. Of course that law would also be unconstitutional, so I guess that it would never fly.

So make it a constitutional ammendment.

Re:Illinois

[smokes2345]

Exactly, you state needs to learn to stop trying to pass stupid legislation that they know will only waste time and money. It doesn't matter how poor your state may be, your government decided to waste the money. The ESA should be compensated, if you don't like it make better decisions at your elections.

Re:Illinois

[Castar]

Well, that's the point the ESA is trying to make. They don't need the money, they want people to realize that trying to pass unconstitutional anti-game legislation is a *bad idea*: it only costs the state money. They're doing this to raise awareness of that fact among voters, in the hopes that the next person to propose something like this gets shouted down by his constituents.

Re:Illinois

[Danse]

Now they're asking for more money. I guess my state just needs to learn how to not be stupid.

Maybe try protesting against gubernatorial candidates that like to grandstand with moronic legislation like this. Hold them accountable for the money they are costing your state!

Re:Illinois

[sesshomaru]

I propose the Damocles Amendment to the Constitution. Any politician who willfully supports or votes for obviously unconstitutional legislating gets chopped in half with a sword.

Re:Illinois

[MjrTom]

It would be found to be in conflict with the first amendment to the US Consitution.

Re:Illinois

[sqlrob]

Just make it an impeachable offense (it is abuse of the public trust), then the Constitution itself covers the banning.

Re:Illinois

[Malakusen]

It's not like Blago wasn't already wildly unpopular. Of course, so was his predecessor. And so are all the Republicans tripping over themselves to try and replace him. Illinois politics: Bipartisan Crony Corruption.

Re:Illinois

[Zangief]

Apparently, ESA tried to get some kind of arrangement with Illinois on this, but they couldn't. So, the only way out is a lawsuit, to set a precedent.

Re:Illinois

[agent_blue]

err, thats not the job of the law makers, its the job of the supreme court to decide if a law is unconstitutional.

you can't have lawmakers trying to make laws and interpert the constituion at the same time.

Re:Illinois

[belmolis]

So long as the Damocles Amendment makes it clear that it overrides the First Amendment, the First Amendment is no barrier. Existing parts of the Constitution don't constrain amendments (except, of course, the parts that specify the amendment process).

Re:Illinois

[sqlrob]

Considering laws like this, they *know* it's unconstitutional, and often times admit it in interviews. It's blatant abuses that need to stop.

Re:Illinois

[Anonymous Coward]

err, thats not the job of the law makers, its the job of the supreme court to decide if a law is unconstitutional.

you can't have lawmakers trying to make laws and interpert the constituion at the same time.

Although this is true, America deserves better. Congressmen need to have a greater respect for both the U.S. Constitution and the Constitution of their home state if they are a state congressman.

Re:Illinois

[Kanasta]

Maybe it'll make the news and your governor can foot the bill himself. After all, ESA can-t be penalised just because Illinois is stupid and poor at the same time.

Re:Illinois

[Alsee]

It would be found to be in conflict with the first amendment to the US Consitution.

Someone does not understand Free Speech.

If a jury unanimously ginds a criminal defendant Not Guilty, it is not a matter of First Amendment Free Speech for a Judge engaging in an official act on the bench to declare him guilty and have him hauled off to prison.

An official act submitting an unconstitutional bill for government action is not Free Speech. An official act of voting to establish or reject that unconstutional bill is not Free Speech.

Someone standing on the sidewalk and saying we should have a law saying such-and-such is Free Speech.

The Constitution places limits on the laws that legislators are permitted to establish. It is entirely appropriate to impose sanctions or even to terminate the employment of legislators found to be abusing their powers of office to pass illegal laws.

I do not think that it would be appropriate to immediately ban from office any legislator who had voted through a single unconstitutional bill. Reasonable mistakes and misunderstandings can and will happen. However there should be increasing sanctions for repeated violations, and persistant offenders should ultimately be banned from holding any government office. We currently have a plague of legislators knowingly submitting and passing unconstitutional bills either playing strictly political games, or because they simply have contempt for the established limits imposed upon them by the Constitution.

-

No way...

[DorkusMasterus]

While I agree that the law was idiotic (and I'm in Illinois), this is a just kicking the other guy while he's down. You won. You should have won, and you did. Be done with it.

If it was such an obvious no-brainer that the law was unconstitutional, then you really didn't need to spend so much money on the legal battle, right?

I just think this is a little unneccesary and just throws more gasoline on the fire (that doesn't need to be there) between the legislative types and the game industry.

Re:No way...

[plague3106]

You won. You should have won, and you did. Be done with it.

Why shouldn't they get their money back? The state shouldn't have passed such a law to begin with, but it did, and the ESA had to spend a lot of money to fight it.

If it was such an obvious no-brainer that the law was unconstitutional, then you really didn't need to spend so much money on the legal battle, right?

Lawyers are always expensive. Even in no-brainer trials, you have to try your absolute best, because if youi don't, the other guy will find some flawed logic to support his theory. If you don't shoot it down, you'll lose.

Re:No way...

[fufubag]

Learn the rules! Illinois WILL pay the court costs. Period.

Good

[casualsax3]

They deserve it.

Great Strategy for Blago

[MdntToker]

Spend all of the ILL Govt's money defending no-win lawsuits, so they can't afford any further investigations of corruption into his office. Brilliant!!

Re:Great Strategy for Blago

[SaDan]

To hell with Blago and all the morons who voted him into office.

Illinois is nothing but corruption in government.

Bad Idea to Award Fees for Fighting Democracy

[rewinn]

I sympathize with ESA's substantive postion, but: it's a bad idea for the courts to award legal fees for overturning laws passed by the people's legislature.

That's bad for democracy.

Of course, I REALLY would like my legal fees to be paid for overturning the laws that I know to be bad. That would be fair, right, just and valid! But I do not want people I disagree with to get the same sort of fees for overturning laws that I know are good.

Democracy is messy. ESA may deserve to win, but does not deserve to win without paying the price.

Re:Bad Idea to Award Fees for Fighting Democracy

[Anonymous Coward]

I do not want people I disagree with to get the same sort of fees for overturning laws that I know are good.

If they are good laws, then how will they get overturned?

ESA may deserve to win, but does not deserve to win without paying the price.

So basically, you have to put up with bad laws unless you have lots of money for a lawsuit? That doesn't sound very democratic.

Sorry, you're doing more to argue for reimbursement than against.

Re:Bad Idea to Award Fees for Fighting Democracy

[rewinn]

>So basically, you have to put up with bad laws unless you have lots of money for a lawsuit? That doesn't sound very democratic.

I don't mean to be offensive, but you seem to be defining "Democracy" as "only good laws survive; bad laws are destroyed". That would be a rather naiive definition, don't you think?

The legislature has the right to pass laws, even bad laws; that's democracy. If it's really a bad law, the people hurt by it will just have to fight it, either in the legislature or in the courts. Government funding for the fight against bad laws, either in the legislature or in the courts, corrupts the system. You may like the outcome in this particular case, but are you really sure that you like it in the long run?

Let's say that a legislature passes a law supporting freedom of speed on the internet, and China gets it overturned as an infringement on the WTO. Do you REALLY want the government of China to collect its legal expenses for that?

>Sorry, you're doing more to argue for reimbursement than against.

No, you don't get to simply assert that you win without proof. Make an argument, then assert victory.

Re:Bad Idea to Award Fees for Fighting Democracy

[keyne9]

I sympathize with ESA's substantive postion, but: it's a bad idea for the courts to award legal fees for overturning laws passed by the people's legislature. That's bad for democracy.

No. Purposefully passing unconstitutional legislation is bad for democracy. We shouldn't have to strike that sort of bullcrap down.

Re:Bad Idea to Award Fees for Fighting Democracy

[rewinn]

>Purposefully passing unconstitutional legislation is bad for democracy.

Many laws are subject to some constitutional challenge. Where would you draw the line?

Re:Bad Idea to Award Fees for Fighting Democracy

[bradkittenbrink]

I sympathize with ESA's substantive postion, but: it's a bad idea for the courts to award legal fees for overturning laws passed by the people's legislature. That's bad for democracy.

Maybe, but it would be worse if legislators who pass unconstitutional legislation get reelected. The best way to prevent this is if their constituents feel the consequences of their legislators' actions. The most direct way to let the constituents feel it is with their wallets.

Re:Bad Idea to Award Fees for Fighting Democracy

[Anonymous Coward]

The line is drawn in court obviously.

Re:Bad Idea to Award Fees for Fighting Democracy

[rewinn]

>it would be worse if legislators who pass unconstitutional legislation get reelected. .... The most direct way to let the constituents feel it is with their wallets.

I sincerely hope that the voters of Illinois clean house, but don't you think it would be bad for the court to use its power to affect how people vote?

Democracy is messy by design!

Re:Bad Idea to Award Fees for Fighting Democracy

[Anonymous Coward]

"Democracy is messy. ESA may deserve to win, but does not deserve to win without paying the price."

Yes because we all know what impact a "loser-pays" judicial system would do to all the greedy, scum-sucking, waste of oxygen, ambulance-chasing trial lawyers and their class action law suits & venue shopping.

Oh wait.... you're a lawyer.... that would explain it......

Re:Bad Idea to Award Fees for Fighting Democracy

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't mean to be offensive, but you seem to be defining "Democracy" as "only good laws survive; bad laws are destroyed". That would be a rather naiive definition, don't you think?

No, he's defining "a good law" as "a law that is not overturned". There's a very important difference there.

You may like the outcome in this particular case, but are you really sure that you like it in the long run?

So now you seem to be using a naive definition - it looks like you're defining "good laws" as "laws I like".

If we accept the definition of a good law as a law that is constitutional (whether you like its effects or not), and if we accept the proposition that the courts do a good job of interpreting the constitution and determining which laws are compatible with it, then it follows quite clearly that any law which is overturned by the courts is a bad law by definition, and therefore those that fought to have it overturned should be compensated, because they have given up their time and money to defend the constitution from a bad law. And I will stand by that statement whether or not the decision is one I "like".

For example, I personally am opposed to gay marriages, but if any law that restricts gay marriages in some way is struck down as unconstitutional, then I will not complain, even if the judge awards costs to the pro-gay movements that have fought the law - because upholding the constitution, which is the central support that protects our freedom and democracy, is more important than my personal likes and dislikes.

Re:Bad Idea to Award Fees for Fighting Democracy

[rewinn]

>The line is drawn in court obviously.

But if your intent is to prevent the passage of bad ("obviously unconstitutional") legislation, post-facto determinations in court don't work well. The legislature won't know until AFTERWARDS that it passed a bad law.

To modify its behavior, the legislature needs a way BEFOREHAND to tell that it's passing a bad law. Where would you draw the line?

AND PLEASE NOTE that ESA is asking for something is DIFFERENT from awarding fees for filing a lawsuit without merit. under Rule 11 or something similar. When you file a lawsuit, you have to follow court rules that require a minimum of inquiry into the merits; that's the pre-rogative of the courts and when you file a lawsuit, you agree to take your chances with the court's rules.

Legislation, OTOH, is entirely different. It is the pre-rogative of the legislature and not subject to court rules. For the court to require fees in this case is a serious change in our constitutional structure.

Re:Bad Idea to Award Fees for Fighting Democracy

[John Miles]

The legislature has the right to pass laws, even bad laws; that's democracy

Correct; that's democracy. We don't live in a democracy, though. We live in a Constitutional republic. That means that the legislature most certainly does NOT have the right to pass laws of this nature.

Unfortunately, there are no consequences for legislators who make illegal laws. That's something we desperately need to fix at both the state and Federal levels.

Re:Bad Idea to Award Fees for Fighting Democracy

[rewinn]

>t looks like you're defining "good laws" as "laws I like"

There's a reason why usually I screen out postings by Anonymous Coward. You've written a complete non sequitur

Re:Bad Idea to Award Fees for Fighting Democracy

[rewinn]

>That means that the legislature most certainly does NOT have the right to pass laws of this nature.

The legislature has the right to pass laws, period. The legislature can and does have the right to pass contradictory, non-sensical, idiotic and even unconstitutional laws. That's well established and no number of postings even on Slashdot can change that.

Courts have the right to overturn unconstitutional laws. The system works. For the courts to penalize the legislature is a massive change in our constitutional structure, which ought to be seriously discussed before implementation.

Re:Bad Idea to Award Fees for Fighting Democracy

[plague3106]

The legislature has the right to pass laws, even bad laws; that's democracy.

No, they have to right to pass laws which are constitutional. Unconstitutional laws should be destroyed. FWIW, we aren't living an a democracy either, its a republic.

Re:Bad Idea to Award Fees for Fighting Democracy

[plague3106]

But if your intent is to prevent the passage of bad ("obviously unconstitutional") legislation, post-facto determinations in court don't work well. The legislature won't know until AFTERWARDS that it passed a bad law.

If they were more familar with the constitution, they shouldn't have any problems. There IS a reason that the current system only lets laws be struct down after the fact.

Obvisouly the legilsature needed to debate this law a bit longer, to work out any possiblity of it being unconstitutional. Yes, this would slow down the passing of laws. Thats exactly how its supposed to be though!

Re:Bad Idea to Award Fees for Fighting Democracy

[rewinn]

>Yes, this would slow down the passing of laws. Thats exactly how its supposed to be though!

You are proposing a massive change in our constitutional scheme, for the purpose of a small improvement in the education of legislatures.

ESA's fees are very small potatos in the budget of Illinois (although if ESA has sued a small town or a county, there would no doubt be some impact.) The constitutional separation of powers between the legislature and the courts is extremely important. Trading one for the other is not a good bargain, but at any rate, should require a constitutional amendment.

Re:Bad Idea to Award Fees for Fighting Democracy

[sedmonds]

The state shouldn't be paying the bill for repealing unconstitutional legislation, the dumbfucks that pass blatantly unconstitutional bills should. Elected officials swore oaths to uphold the law, they violated their oath, they ought to be held accountable.

Re:Bad Idea to Award Fees for Fighting Democracy

[John Miles]

The legislature has the right to pass laws, period. The legislature can and does have the right to pass contradictory, non-sensical, idiotic and even unconstitutional laws. That's well established and no number of postings even on Slashdot can change that.

What part of "Congress shall make no law" are you having trouble with?

Re:Bad Idea to Award Fees for Fighting Democracy

[cpt kangarooski]

Two problems: First, it is entirely possible for reasonable people to disagree as to the proper interpretation of the constitution. Legislators should not be punished for not accurately reading the minds of some judges as they are years down the road.

Second, courts have been known to be wrong, admitted their mistake, and corrected it in subsequent rulings. No one is perfect, and this includes the legislature. Besides, giving power to the courts over the composition of the legislative bodies threatens the balance of power within government.

Re:Bad Idea to Award Fees for Fighting Democracy

[91degrees]

FWIW, we aren't living an a democracy either, its a republic.

Only if your knowledge of politics is based on Sid Miers' Civilization. The US is a federal democratic republic with a president elected through inderect democracy as the head of a nation made up of a number of states many of which provide at least some form of direct democracy, and most of which are representative democracies.

Democracy and republic are not mutually exclusive.

Re:Bad Idea to Award Fees for Fighting Democracy

[CharlesDonHall]

To modify its behavior, the legislature needs a way BEFOREHAND to tell that it's passing a bad law. Where would you draw the line?

The same place we draw it when the government isn't involved. Filing a lawsuit and losing is one thing, but filing a frivolous lawsuit is another. If the court rules that your case had no merit, then you can be required to pay the other side's court costs.

Likewise, there's a difference between a law of questionable constitutionality and a law that's clearly unconstitutional.

It's not like this is anything new. There was a big court case in Dover, PA a few months ago. The school board tried to force Creationism on the students, and some of the parents sued. The board was in obvious violation of well-established constitutional precedent, and they wound up having to pay the parents' legal bills.

(Source: http://www.yorkdispatch.com/local/ci_3535139)

Re:Bad Idea to Award Fees for Fighting Democracy

[Anonymous Coward]

It's a bit hypocritical of you to say that, considering you just got done putting words in my mouth. When you said:

you seem to be defining "Democracy" as "only good laws survive; bad laws are destroyed".

...when I was saying something completely different. Now you cry foul because somebody else did the same? Hell, they didn't even do the same, as far as I can tell, you made a completely illogical leap whereas his interpretation of what you said makes sense.

Re:Bad Idea to Award Fees for Fighting Democracy

[Danse]

I believe it depends on exactly how bad the law was. The court should be able to determine whether legal fees should be paid by the loser or not based on whether the law runs afoul of established legal precedent or not.

Re:Bad Idea to Award Fees for Fighting Democracy

[Danse]

but don't you think it would be bad for the court to use its power to affect how people vote?

If it encourages people to elect legislators who will pay attention to legal precedent and the Constitution that they are sworn to uphold, then no.

Re:Bad Idea to Award Fees for Fighting Democracy

[Qzukk]

The problem is that as it stands, the constitution is the highest law in the land, the most powerful rule of all, and yet it has no teeth. The first amendment reads "Congress shall make no law..." yet, there is absolutely nothing to stop Congress from making that law. If a majority of Representatives and Senators voted for it and the President signed it, then Constitution be damned, it IS a law, and nothing can be done to them for breaking the Constitution until the next ballot.

Worse, this rabbit hole goes deeper: Nothing is heard by the SCOTUS until after it's been heard by an appeals court. Nothing is heard by the appeals court until after it's been heard by a lower federal court. Nothing is heard in federal court until someone's been arrested for it, or someone begs the government for the right to sue over it. When a law is passed, it only goes through two branches of the government: the legislative and the executive. It is not until after harm is done that the judicial branch even has a say.

Now, think of the cost. Whether you're defending yourself or suing over the law, it costs a LOT of money just to reach the SCOTUS. It's just not going to happen if all you've got is some public defender who sleeps through your case. You've got at least three cases to argue, assuming nobody throws your case back down a level on a technicality. Furthermore, if you win at any point along the way, the government can simply walk away and refuse to appeal, which might get you out of jail, but in the grand scheme of things, you've lost.

So, is it that much of a disaster to give the judicial branch the same power of veto we give the executive branch, and to specify immediate impeachment for those who would run roughshod over our Constitution? Or maybe, rather than charging the unfortunate citizens of the state of Illinois, just an amendment to the shield that legislators now enjoy, so that the money can come out of the pockets of those who voted for this act?

Re:Bad Idea to Award Fees for Fighting Democracy

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't mean to be offensive, but you seem to be defining "Democracy" as "only good laws survive; bad laws are destroyed". That would be a rather naiive definition, don't you think?

No, I'm defining democracy as a mechanism that doesn't give rich people a huge advantage over poor people. That's plutocracy, not democracy.

If it's really a bad law, the people hurt by it will just have to fight it, either in the legislature or in the courts.

And without reimbursement, only people with money to throw away are able to do so. That means that if some rich people pass bad laws, it's difficult for poor people to challenge them. Did you completely miss my point or are you intentionally avoiding it?

Let's say that a legislature passes a law supporting freedom of speed on the internet, and China gets it overturned as an infringement on the WTO. Do you REALLY want the government of China to collect its legal expenses for that?

We're talking about unconstitutional law entirely within the USA. That is an entirely different thing to international law and its applicability to the Internet. Come up with a representative example and it might be worth rebutting, but I'm not going to waste my time on ignorant fantasies ("free speech infringement on the WTO"? Do you have any clue what you are talking about at all or are you just stringing together legal-sounding big words in an attempt to sound smart?).

No, you don't get to simply assert that you win without proof.

Work on your reading comprehension. I didn't assert that I had "won" the argument, I asserted that the points you make work against the argument you are trying to make.

Re:Bad Idea to Award Fees for Fighting Democracy

[plague3106]

Huh? What change am I proposing? The legislature can debate laws, they do all the time. If they debate, decide that a law will violate the consitution and then vote to not pass it, what is wrong with that? Should they just pass ever law that's proposed and let the courts sort it out?

It is the responsibility of all three branches to protect the constution, not just the courts.

Re:Bad Idea to Award Fees for Fighting Democracy

[fufubag]

the legislature can and does have the right to pass contradictory, non-sensical, idiotic and even unconstitutional laws.

You are completely wrong. The legislature may pass unconstitutional laws, but that is what the courts are for. Unconstitutional laws will NOT survive under our constitution.

Re:Bad Idea to Award Fees for Fighting Democracy

[RexRhino]

So what you are saying is that the government should be allowed to take our constitutional rights away, and only people with millions of dollars to spend in legal fees should be allowed to fight it?

Re:Bad Idea to Award Fees for Fighting Democracy

[Anonymous Coward]

Me thinks the 'no' part :)

Re:Bad Idea to Award Fees for Fighting Democracy

[Sigma 7]

What part of "Congress shall make no law" are you having trouble with?

What (legally) prevents the constitution from being amended with something that strikes the first amendment?

No man's life, liberty, or security is guarenteed when congress is in session.

Re:Bad Idea to Award Fees for Fighting Democracy

[Guppy06]

"That's bad for democracy."

Public resonsibility and accountability is bad for democracy?

Would you happen to be a Member of Congress, by any chance?

Re:Bad Idea to Award Fees for Fighting Democracy

[Anonymous Coward]

It could theoretically happen, but not via conventional legislation. An amendment would have to be passed by not only both houses of Congress, but also vetted by (IIRC) 2/3 of the states.

The other way would be through the calling of a Constitutional Convention, which has never been done.

Re:Bad Idea to Award Fees for Fighting Democracy

[Anonymous Coward]

Illinois != Congress

Re:Bad Idea to Award Fees for Fighting Democracy

[Alsee]

it's a bad idea for the courts to award legal fees for overturning laws passed by the people's legislature.

That's bad for democracy.

Excuse me? What is bad for democracy is the legislature passing illegal laws in the first place!

The legislature passing laws that they that have no power to pass. Passing laws that the Constition prohibits them from passing.

When the government attempts to enforce an illegal law against someone, that person is an innocent victim of illegal government action. It is entirely appropriate that that innocent person not have to pay their legal costs defending themselves against that illegal government action.

Anyone who gets an unconstitutional law overturned is providing a valuable public service and benefiting us all. In my oppinion they should not only get back their court costs, they really deserve some bounty or award for providing that valuable public service. This is an inherently non-abusable issue because anyone attempting to challenge valid laws simply gets burned.

I do not want people I disagree with to get the same sort of fees for overturning laws that I know are good.

Excuse me?!? If a law is overturned for being unconstitutional, then it is by definitition bad law. Just because you like an unconstitutional law doesn't mean squat.

If you are anti-American and you dislike our Constitution, well tough luck. If you have a problem with the Constitution then you should either move to some other country or you should persue the legitimate process to ammend the Constitution. You can't pass bad and unconstitutional laws simply because you like them.

ESA may deserve to win, but does not deserve to win without paying the price.

Why should an innocent victim have to pay a price?

I assume you also beleive you should have to pay the price for winning if you're a victim of false arrest by some pissed off police officer who plants drugs on you and lies in court?

When innocent people are victimized by the illegal actions of the government they are generally entitled to counter sue for court costs and possibly even damages.

-

Re:Bad Idea to Award Fees for Fighting Democracy

[Alsee]

The legislature has the right to pass laws, period.

False. That's like saying the police have the right to shoot people, period. The legislature is granted the power to pass the laws and only those laws that the Constitutional grants them the power to pass.

There is simply no current meaningful penalty in place for legislators who act illegally in such manner.

Obviously good faith mistakes and misinterpertations will happen, but a legislator who repeatedly acts in contempt of the Constitution is entirely deserving of sanctions. If they persistantly and egregiously violate the oath and duties of their office and and illegally act in contempt of the Constitutition, it is entirely approprate that they ultimately face termination of their employment in such position.

It would be a good thing for legislators to have some real motivation and concern to use care to remaining within the bounds of the constitution.Too many legislators deliberately play purely political games with unconstitutional laws. Too many legislators are simply contempuous of the limits placed upon them by the Constitution. Too many legislators make a persistant mission of trying to evade and subvert the Constitution - repeatedly rewriting and repassing the same unconstitutional laws looking for loopholes and trying to see how much they can get away with.

For the courts to penalize the legislature is a massive change in our constitutional structure, which ought to be seriously discussed before implementation.

It wouldn't be a Constitutional change at all. I'm thinking we should simply pass a law imposing minor and increasing sanctions on repeated violations. When a law is struck down as unconstitutional, all legislators who voted for it would get one demerit. The official sponsor(s) who introduced the bill would get several demerits. After a certain threshhold was exeeded that legislator would have his salary penalized. Continued demerits would result in temporary suspension of certain legislative privilges. Persistant and egregious violations would result in automatic impeachment. The region represented by the impeached legislator could have special elections for a new representative as per any standing rules for such special elections when an office is vacated. Unfortunately this is a case of the fox guarding the henhouse, with Congress being unlikely to hold itself accountable. But it is entirely possible, and I think it would be a good thing.

-

Re:Bad Idea to Award Fees for Fighting Democracy

[Alsee]

What (legally) prevents the constitution from being amended with something that strikes the first amendment?

Well we were talking about Congress. So the answer is that the Constitution prohibits Congress from striking the First Amendment.

It takes a Constitutional Convention to amend, or passage of 3/4th of the state legislatures.

-

Re:Bad Idea to Award Fees for Fighting Democracy

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, but in the real world you can do something unconstitutional if no-one important (i.e. more powerful than you) objects.
If the constitution says something which is clearly silly it can be happily ignored.
The constitution isn't a physical law like gravity you know...

Re:Bad Idea to Award Fees for Fighting Democracy

[SillySlashdotName]

There are a bunch of things you have wrong, and some contradictory as well.

First, the courts are not "awarding legal fees for overturning laws passed by the people's legislature", they are being asked to award fees sustained in running an successful legal suit.

The result of the suit is that the law is shown to be unconstitutional and the state is enjoined from enforcing that law, but that is the proper procedure for overturning unconstitutional laws.

In addition, according to TFA, "But the State has left little choice, and this petition is consistent with the rules of the federal courts regarding award of attorney's fees to prevailing parties." so ESA is asking for WHAT THE FEDERAL COURT RULES ALLOW for the winning side of a law suit.

I don't follow where you are getting 'following the rules to get rid of a bad rule is good, but continuing to follow the rules is bad.'

From TFA: "From the day Governor Blagojevich announced that he would seek anti-video game legislation, it was clear to everyone that the proposal would be found unconstitutional and would waste taxpayers dollars in a protracted legal fight that would leave parents no better off," [Kennedy] said.

So it is not ESA gaming the system, it is the governor. And the governor should be held accountable for his stupidity in this matter.

From TFA:

"Unfortunately, while it was clear we could agree on the amount of fees to be reimbursed, the state made other demands which we could not accept. Accordingly, consistent with our belief that the public has a right to know how much of their tax dollars were spent defending a statute that everyone knew from the start was unconstitutional, we have proceeded with this filing."


So the state is not even asking that ESA NOT get the fees, they are asking for ADDITIONAL demands - even though the state LOST the suit and have NO legal standing to make additional demands of ESA.

Looks to me like the state is being a total ass - passing an uncostitutional law, refusing to back down when confronted, then refusing to pay the winning sides fees without adding some demands THEY ARE NOT ALLOWED TO ADD to the condition of payment.

From TFA:

As we said from the outset, we would have preferred to spend our resources on cooperative programs to help parents ensure their kids play appropriate games, rather than divert money to respond to politically motivated attacks on video games.

So ESA used funds from "cooperative programs" to fight this law, and they should not be required to just eat the loss of funds.

That's bad for democracy.

Not proven, and I feel that it is totally wrong.

If you mean bad for the democratic process, then you are wrong. The people, throught the democratic process, organized the system the way it is, so NOT FOLLOWING the system as it is (including lawsuits against bad laws and winner petitioning for payment of their fees) is bad for the democratic process.

Note that the USA has three branches of government - legislative, executive, and judicial. The purpose of the legislative branch is to pass laws - good laws, bad laws, stupid laws, anything they want. The purpose of the judicial branch is to throw out the bad laws, the stupid laws, and pretty much anything that is not a 'good' law, based on the Constitution. Note that the judicial branch does not operate by itself. Unless someone brings suit, the laws are not examined. By bringing suit, ESA forced the examination of this law by the judicial branch o four 'democracy'.

If you mean bad for the supposed democracy in place, I fail to see how one branch of the government overturning a law passed by by another branch EXACTLY AS INTENDED can be bad for our 'democracy'.

Personally, I think all laws should be considered BAD until they have been paraded before a judicial representative and validated as 'NOT BAD' before going into effect. That makes the asshats (like most - all? - politicians) create laws that

Re:Bad Idea to Award Fees for Fighting Democracy

[Anonymous Coward]

You != a first-round College Bowl draft pick

Re:Bad Idea to Award Fees for Fighting Democracy

[Alsee]

Can anyone excplain the above Anonymous post to me? I read it several times and I don't think I fully follow what he's saying. Is he suggesting that there is something "silly" in the Constitution? Is he suggesting that Congress can and should ignore the Constitution?

-

Re:ha

[hunterx11]

You're just upset because having a Democrat governor in power means that Daley can run the whole state :)

Illinois politics is a mess

[Anonymous Coward]

When the parent post says "maybe the citizens should think twice about electing him", it shows a complete lack of knowledge about Illinois politics.

Seriously, the only competent politician in this state (and I live in Ill) is Obama.

Our last governor is on trial for corruption, Blagojevich is a clueless idiot, and the republican challengers this year are a joke.....

It's not like we have a lot of options here people!

Re:Illinois politics is a mess

[the_Bionic_lemming]

Obama competant? For wanting to grant troops police powers in times of disaster? For taking money from Abramoff ? Or is it the coke sniffing (read his book) that makes him competant?

Illinois is so rife with crooks sucking our cash from us it's disgusting. I live ten miles from indiana, and buy all my groceries and gas there to avoid the stupidly excessive taxes we pay on everything.

Re:Illinois politics is a mess

[XMilkProject]

Then why don't you run?

Thats what democracy is all about. If you can do a better job, go do it.

If all your peers really agree that the options are so bad, then they should be happy to vote for you.

Re:Illinois politics is a mess

[sesshomaru]

What does democracy have to do with Illinois politics?

Re:Illinois politics is a mess

[Anonymous Coward]

very fucking little.

-Illinois native who now lives in FLA

Re:Illinois politics is a mess

[RexRhino]

What is it a "competent politician" does that you are willing to give up your first amendment right of freedom of speech to support?

Re:Illinois politics is a mess

[duerra]

It's not like we have a lot of options here people!

I've got about 49 other examples that I could show you proving that you're not alone.

Re:Illinois politics is a mess

[SaDan]

I used to live in Indiana, and now reside in Illinois. I'd gladly go back to get away from this mess... FIX THE FUCKING SCHOOLS YOU ASSHOLE POLITICIANS!

Re:Illinois politics is a mess

[the_Bionic_lemming]

My next move will be to crown point, or somewhere south of that.

Ok...

[EmperorKagato]

I live in this state. What the reigning hell is going on? I didn't vote for you or this.

Re:Ok...

[shotfeel]

Sure you did! At least according to the records in 13 of the 14 voting districts where you cast your ballots in the last election.

Re:Ok...

[SaDan]

Shit, he missed one.

No, consider it a bit more carefully.

[OmniGeek]

Consider the hypothetical case where YOU were the personal victim of an unconsitutional law, and spent lots of your $$ defeating it in court. Now you're out lots of YOUR money because the state did something illegal. What's to prevent them from doing it again and again 'till you're destitute and can no longer afford to fight and win, or until you give up and accept the unconstitutional law to remain solvent? Either way, the state accomplishes by attrition what they cannot do under law.

As for the obviousness argument, it's irrelevant just how obviously bad the law is -- you either have to sue and spend what it takes to finish the litigation, or shut up and accept the bad law; there's no third option.

The award of attorney's fees paid by the loser makes it untenable to pursue such a win-by-losing strategy -- or at least, it's intended to do that. Think of it as a check on frivolous litigation (and lawmaking, if the principle is, IMHO reasonably, applied to situations like this).

It IS a shame that the state's taxpayers have to pay for their government's folly, but then, they DID elect those folks in the first place. That seems a lesser ill than the above scenario where the victim pays for it. (And no, it DOESN'T matter that the victim is a trade organization and not an individual; the fundamentals don't change.) Out wit da bums...

Re:No, consider it a bit more carefully.

[falcon5768]

Exactly. If you feel that its not right your money is being spent now paying off the stupidity of your lawmakers, then maybe YOU should do something about it and not elect idiots in the first place.

Look it how much people disliked Bush after the first election, once the dust settled... He ran on this platform of things are getting better even when common sense told everyone no they wheren't and what happened? He won and things are worse.

I would bet you 100 bucks if he where to run tomorrow enough people would STILL elect him President despite that fact. There is a very good reason the US doesnt have a true democracy, and its because give a mob the choice to pick someone and they will always go with thier heart over their common sense.

The sad thing is even with your state having to pay out for its stupidity, they will spin this as the evils of the company and get more of you poor suckers to vote them in next election.

Re:No, consider it a bit more carefully.

[Danse]

People see politics like sports these days. It's not about who's the right one for the job, or who's honest or not. It's all about rooting for your team and bashing the other team. That's all there is to it anymore.

Re:No, consider it a bit more carefully.

[Alsee]

I would bet you 100 bucks if he where to run tomorrow enough people would STILL elect him President despite that fact.

The last election was extremely close, and Bush's latest approval polls have hit 33%. He has lost ALL of the independants, and now even substantial percentage of Republicans are finally Losing The Faith and defecting.

If the election were today, a turnip could beat Bush.

It was really rotten timing on the election, and that Kerry rated only slightly above a turnip. Heh.

-

Wrong headline

[Anonymous Coward]

"ESA wants to demonstrate that unconstitutional legislation costs the taxpayer money."

Except...

[chaboud]

It appears that you're the one asserting victory without proof.

He largely doesn't have to say anything because your point is completely, on its face, absurd.

It's not a matter of whether a law is good or bad. It's a matter of a law being unconstitutional, thus violating the protections that we put in place for the rights of entities in this nation. If those protections are provided only to those capable of funding a fight against the legislature, protection is only provided for the wealthy.

If the legislature is forced to pay for attempts at violating the rights of others, that legislature *should* be less likely to make such attempts.

Re:Except...

[rewinn]

> If the legislature is forced to pay for attempts at violating the rights of others, that legislature *should* be less likely to make such attempts.

Do you *really* think that a legislature will modify its behavior because it has to shell out, what, a million buck or so? That's not even pocket change in the state budget of Illinois.

And the Constitutional principle .. . despite your ad hominem attacks ... stands unchallenged. The legislature has the right to pass any legislation it wants; the courts have the right to strike down the legislation. The court does not have the right to impose penalties on the legislature for bad legislation, under the "cases and controversies" limitation of our Constitution (...the courts cannot consider laws that have not been passed yet, because they have no jurisdiction until there is an actual "case" before it ... and it follows that the legislature cannot be penalized by the court for not submitting its legislation to the court for approval before passing it.)

Re:Except...

[Danse]

The legislature has the right to pass any legislation it wants; the courts have the right to strike down the legislation.

Legislators are supposed to uphold the Constitution. If they don't know or understand the Constitution, and they're writing laws that ignore the Constitution and even legal precedent, then they deserve to pay for the costs of those that have to fight to overturn the bad law in court.

Re:Except...

[qeveren]

So... you're arguing then that I have the right to break any and all laws at my own whim, and the courts have the right to try and convict me for these laws? You have a peculiar way of looking at things.

Re:ha

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, because Illinois would be a real economic power without Chicago.

Re:ha

[hey!]

I am also a resident of Illinois, and we need to learn how to kick Chicago out so we are no longer the big blue pimple in the red midwest.

So, what you're implying is that Republicans never favor censoring materials that they find objectionable.

Let me point you to the the Alabama bill to ban libraries, schools, even universities from purchasing "textbooks or library materials that recognize or promote homosexuality as an acceptable lifestyle". The bill's sponor, Gerald Allen, tells us helpfully: "I don't look at it as censorship, I look at it as protecting the hearts and souls and minds of our children."

Same idea, same ostensible motive. The only difference is probably the result of the usual gender gap politics.

So why don't YOU run for office?

[Anonymous Coward]

Put up or shut up!

-nosebreaker.com

Re:So why don't YOU run for office?

[Anonymous Coward]

Put up or shut up!

Because unless you're a practicing christian (you have to at least go to church, and either be a true believer or lie well enough to convince people you really believe) you are basically unelectable. Additionally, you have to kiss corporate and special interest ass to earn campaign money if you want anyone to actually know you're running. And you somehow have to round up enough supporters to get petition signatures to get yourself on the ballot. I definitely wouldn't meet the first criteria, and meeting the second would defeat the purpose of running for office, so the third, which would be the easiest, wouldn't even matter. People are generally more willing to elect crooks and frauds than agnostics. Go figure.

Re:ha

[Anonymous Coward]

I also live in IL. Since he first announced his candidacy I started calling him Blah, as no matter what he says I just hear Blah Blah Blah.

Anyway, we are talking about a governor that lives in Chicago. He flies back and forth to Springfield many times. I don't know where he was when the tornado went through town this past sunday, but he was here for the press conferences on monday.

This is the governor that does not live in the Governor's Mansion, but is having them put in a heated driveway at a huge cost to taxpayers over the next several years. He has us foot his bill for his commute to work from Chicago (as I already listed). He introduces legislation that is guaranteed to be struck down, and wastes taxpayer money to do it.

And truthfully we don't have anyone running in the primaries in any party that are much better than him. He represents Chicago and will most likely win as Chicago tends to steal most elections in IL. I have believed for years that Chicago should break off and leave the rest of IL alone. The rest of the state would at least be able to see our tax dollars used closer to home instead of up in the Chicago area. (Note: I did not state all tax dollars go to Chicago, but a large chunk of them end up there)

double pay?

[Down8]

So, in order to bring to light the fact that this crazy piece of legislature was a waste of taxpayer money, ESA wants the tax payers to pay them for fighting the wasted tax payer money?

Did I get that right? WTF?

-bZj

that's cute

[BitterAndDrunk]

Us Chicagoans make it possible for you to even have schools and stuff. You want facts? You came to the wrong place. Da Bears!

Re:ha

[Anonymous Coward]

Someone made the observation that all cities generate federal revenue and all rural areas suck it up. I don't feel like finding the data to back that up, so feel free to ignore me.

ESA v ESRB?

[Wingchild]

I'm happy the ESA is taking a stand against badly written laws that seek to ban or limit video games in various states. Their efforts have been instrumental in overturning several other similar laws.

Even so, I find myself wondering what will happen if action is taken regarding the Family Entertainment Protection Act, a Senate bill sponsored by Senators Clinton and Lieberman. That bill legislates a cash penalty (or community service) to back up enforcement of the ESRB standards. The ESA created the ESRB in 1994, didn't it?

An amusing provision of that bill calls for the Federal Trade Commission to create a watchdog group that oversees the ESRB to ensure that their ratings standard doesn't "slip" (potentially giving that oversight group a way to influence actual ESRB ratings in the future).

The ESA has been good about standing up to state legislatures. Will they stand up to Congress and the ratings board they spawned if that bill makes it out of committee?

Re:ESA v ESRB?

[moloko_synthemesc]

Clinton (feh) and Lieberman (Aren't there term limits? This guy's been around for WAY too long). The dynamic duo. I've seen very few Democratic politicians over the past 20 years with a lick of common sense. Education and intellect, yes, but the two are often mutually exclusive, unfortunately. I wouldn't expect the bill to get very far. Many of our representatives have lauded the ESRB over the years. The problem is still as it has always been: time after time, some mother or grandmother buys her 10-year old a GTA game at a store and then is shocked by the age-inappropriate content. It's idiots like these who are mostly the ones complaining that tougher legislation is required, since they can't be bothered to pay any attention. Let the gov't control everything, who needs the burden of having choice? How did so many people get so irresponsible over the years? The one (only) thing we can all do is contact our representatives when we see something idiotic like this coming.

Wah Wah Wah

[Rydia]

Almost all of the statutes on the books are unconstitutional in some way. Almost all of Illinois,'s criminal code isn't enforceable in the form in the books, for example. Passing unconstitutional laws is pretty par for the course, and that's fine. Per se unconstutional laws are rarely passed, and people can use the ruling to craft doctrines around the unconstitutionality. Give me a break.

Re:ha

[Anonymous Coward]

(Note: I did not state all tax dollars go to Chicago, but a large chunk of them end up there)

I would imagine that the lion's share of tax revenue comes from Chicago as well.

Political Intrigue.

[Stephen Samuel]

Apparently it's relatively standard practice in situations like this. Supposedly, they even had an agreement on the ammount. What the ESA seems to squawking about is that the government wanted to put an NDA on the payment so that taxpayers wouldn't know what they were paying for this fiasco.

The government is going to be in a tight spot with this lawsuit. If they've already agreed on the $600K ammount, their only defence is going to be that they were willing to pay the ESA extra money to hide how much this cost. I'm sure that they'll be happy to admit that.

I live in Illinois...

[FlamingLaird]

I live in Southern Illinois (colloquially known as North Kentucky). I can honestly tell you the only reason Rod Blagojevich was elected is because his name is as far from 'Ryan' as possible without using crylic or cuniform.

I'd personally like the state of Illinois to donate the income tax I paid them last year to the ESA.

Re:I live in Illinois...

[SaDan]

I live in northern Illinois. I think Northern, Central, and Southern Illinois should get together and kick Chicago out.

Re:I live in Illinois...

[Anonymous Coward]

This AC from Southern Illinois would like to second that motion.....

as long as they take our useless Governor with them.

Re:I live in Illinois...

[Anonymous Coward]

Gogogogo, Metropolis!

Re:I live in Illinois...

[Anonymous Coward]

I live in Chicago (suburbs of...). Illinois is nothing without Chicago, just some villages, and fields, fields, fields...

Why shouldn't they pay.

[H01ym0ses]

In most cases I've seen the loser has to compensate the winner of the case for fees and loss of monies from the case and revenue lost as well. Why should the state be exempt from this? Yea it hurts the public, yes it hurts the economy, however it may set an example to other idiots who attempt this. Think before you speak. Its better to be silent and thought a fool then to speak and remove all doubt. Censorship is rampant enough in this country. Most major company's now try to ban or censor anything that is negative to them using the severely skewed laws in place now. Until we stand up and say you bunch of F'n idiots quit spending our money and wasting our time on irrelevent things and actually do what you were initially voted for to do. I've seen good and bad elected officials in office and the sad but true fact is the deceitful ones seem to win out over the honorable ones more often then not, simple fact is the liars will promise everything and deliver nothing, and still tell you its what you wanted to begin with. Yet we put them back in power time and time again. Personally the decrepit old farts in the high offices need to be either put out in the pasture most times for younger people with more interest in the public and less in the price of the legacy they leave their children. Reminds me of the recent "OIL/GAS" prices that have risen over 20% in the last years. Still the companies who own and sell these products are reporting a nearly 30% increase of revenue for each phiscal quarter. We pay more for something that they don't and they get to benefit from this and our Govt. that is designed to protect us from this is simply taking the money from them and telling us that they are working to help curb this atrocity........ Strange, wait isn't our president an old world Oil Tycoon?..... O the Irony of the whole thing....

Perjury?

[Hungry Admin]

In passing obviously unconstitutional law, haven't legislators committed perjury? In order to be "sworn in" they had to swear to defend the constitution.