Judge Manning Tramples Constitution, For The Children
One can only be amused at the convoluted thinking Judge Howard Manning and his supporters supply to his distortion of his authority under the state constitution. The instant case has to do with North Carolina’s pre-kindergarten program for 4-year-olds. According to the aggressively liberal mindset, the legislature is supposed to cough up $30,000,000 or more to fund the pre-K program, because Manning says so. In their rationale they include the argument about separation of powers, wherein each branch of our government has powers of its own: “The executive branch administers the laws. The legislature passes laws and raises and spends money. The courts decide if those laws are legal.”
But the argument reveals its inherent disdain for the Constitution, as those who seek more government spending often do. They tell us: “There’s more at stake here than constitutional theory. Thousands of at-risk 4-year-olds are missing out on education.”
Let us understand. Article 1, Section 8 of the North Carolina Constitution says: “The people of this State shall not be taxed or made subject to the payment of any impost or duty without the consent of themselves or their representatives in the General Assembly, freely given.”
Article IX, Section 2 says: Uniform System of Schools: …. The General Assembly shall provide by taxation and otherwise for a general and uniform system of free public schools, which shall be maintained at least nine months in every year, and wherein equal opportunities shall be provided for all students.
There is nothing in our polity more important than constitutional law. Going beyond the written constitution, Judge Manning is trying to increase his authority and make law. He is not a legislator, has no authority over the legislature, yet attempts to dictate what the legislature must do. No, his authority, his limited authority, has to do with his ability, as a judge, to determine if the law, as written by the legislature, is legal. He has no authority to dictate taxes or expenditures. Yet he would try. He would be more successful and have more support from the constitution if he stayed within his authorized limits. His supporters care nothing for that, so care nothing for our Constitution, unless it supports their own agenda.
Based on our state’s Constitution, one could easily make the argument that the law for a limited amount of funding for 4-year-olds, as written, giving access to some children and not others, is not equally applied; that all children are not given equal opportunities. At that point the whole of the program would be thrown out and the legislature must determine what to do to remedy the situation. Further, it is obvious the pre-kindergarten program is an addition, a supplement to the offering of a general public education. For that matter even kindergarten is not a requirement of the General Assembly.
For Judge Manning to decide that all 4-year-olds must have access to the program is outside of his authority. What he can decide is whether the program, as written, gives equal access to all. There is a huge difference in the two statements of authority.
To argue that it is a good program and should be funded should be immaterial to the courts. That is an argument for the legislature. The courts should only determine if the law is applied properly, according to the state constitution. When Judge Manning goes beyond that, as he does on a regular basis, gives time for pause.
It is Judge Manning who is wrong, who needs his position taken away, as he has let personal desires override his legally allowed, limited authority. He is only a judge, nothing more. He is certainly not king, not even a prince, and the term judge does not ordain him with unlimited power. As he disagrees with that position, thinking he should have more authority, it seems time he should be returned to private life, having all public authority removed from his dominion.
We need your help! If you like PunditHouse, please consider donating to us. Even $5 a month can make a difference!
Short URL: https://pundithouse.com/?p=7552
