Petition for Writ of Quo Warranto - Minnesota State Legislature

More documents

Recommendations

Info

C. The Attorney General's "core functions" approach is not limited to the three exceptions to the annual legislative appropriations requirement - thereby violating the Minnesota Constitution, statutes and the political question doctrine 49 V. The Petitioners should prevail because allowing the district court to proceed to disburse moneys without an appropriation by law will undermine the fundamental foundation ofand interpretation of Minnesota's Constitution 53 PRAYER FOR RELIEF 56 111
PURPOSE OF PETITION Quo warranto is necessitated by the improper and unconstitutional actions of the lower court, precipitated through the actions ofthe Attorney General's Office. The instant Petition requests the Minnesota Supreme Court to issue a writ of quo warranto upon the Respondents: • to show by what specific constitutional or statutory provision the Ramsey County District Court has the authority, in the absence oflegislativelyenacted appropriations, to order "that the Commissioner ofthe Department ofManagement and Budget shall issue checks and process such funds as necessary"! to continue state governmental operations; • to show by what specific constitutional or statutory provision the Attorney General, as an executive branch office, has the authority to petition the lower court for advisory opinions on political questions and engage the court in governing the State ofMinnesota through monetary appropriations that are the sole province ofthe legislative branch ofgovernment; and • inform the Respondents that in the absence ofthe demanded showings the Court will enjoin the Respondents from holding any further Ramsey County District Court proceedings in this regard. In this Petition the Petitioners do not challenge the Ramsey County District Court actions taken in the companion case 62-CV-1l-5361. ! Atty Gen. Pet. 8 (June 13,2011). Petitioners Appendix 41. 1
Page 2 and 3: TABLE OF CONTENTS PURPOSE OF PETITI
Page 6 and 7: INTRODUCTION 1. Minnesota's executi
Page 8 and 9: JURISDICTION The Supreme Court has
Page 10 and 11: ISSUES PRESENTED 1. Article XI requ
Page 12 and 13: STATEMENT OF FACTS Minnesota's fail
Page 14 and 15: 15 fd. Governor vetoed in 2011, Min
Page 16: Moneys appropriated in 2009 Minn. L
Page 19 and 20: 29. For instance, on May 21,2001, t
Page 21 and 22: 38. Similar to 2001, the court orde
Page 23 and 24: exigent ofcircumstances" to justify
Page 25 and 26: an appropriation by law. The need f
Page 27 and 28: lost because the judiciary has usur
Page 29 and 30: The Court stated that a single legi
Page 31 and 32: generallY recognized that a taxpaye
Page 33 and 34: While the consent ofthe attorney ge
Page 35 and 36: circumstances test, however, do not
Page 37 and 38: General Assembly enacted an executi
Page 40 and 41: the constitution grants the Governo
Page 42: fund that state program. But what c
Page 45 and 46: Jefferson, Notes on Virginia, p. 19
Page 47 and 48: Commissioner is to credit revenue f
Page 49 and 50: Supremacy Clause applies. However,
Page 51 and 52: 118. For example, the state is requ
Page 53: C. The Attorney General's "core fun
Page 56 and 57:
131. State statutes are explicit in
Page 58 and 59:
appropriate state funds. Because th
Page 60 and 61:
PRAYER FOR RELIEF For the foregoing
show all

Petition for Writ of Quo Warranto - Minnesota State Legislature

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?