Even the governor has to prove it
By HOWARD TROXLER, Times Staff Writer
Published December 4, 2007
Here is an old idea that we got from English law:
Just 'cause a government guy is a big shot, that doesn't make him all-powerful.
We can challenge his actions in court. We can demand to know: What gives you this power, buddy? By what authority do you act?
Quo warranto?
This ain't dusty stuff - it is our living law today. It might even apply to a fellow who is as handsome, popular and cheerful as the governor of Florida.
Remember that Gov. Charlie Crist signed a 25-year deal with the Seminole Tribe to expand gambling.
But our Legislature is challenging Crist's power to make this deal all by himself. Our state House has turned to the Florida Supreme Court.
And in the ancient fashion, the piece of paper that the House filed with the court was titled: "Petition For Writ Of Quo Warranto."
* * *
Can the governor of Florida do any darned-tootin' thing he wants to in a contract?
No, of course not.
He can't repeal a state law, or create a new one.
He can't promise how we'll spend state money - that's the Legislature's job. He can't overturn the state courts.
The question here is whether Crist's deal with the Seminoles violates any of those principles. The House argues that it does so in several ways:
-It authorizes gambling otherwise prohibited by state law and the Constitution.
-It regulates health, safety and morals at seven casinos.
-It raises state revenue in a way that punishes the state for future policy changes.
-It establishes regulation under the oversight of the governor or his designee.
-It imposes regulatory assessments.
-It alters the sovereign immunity of Florida.
-It regulates and limits court claims and workers' compensation claims coming from the casinos.
-It makes exceptions to the public records laws.
-It binds the state for 25 years.
All of this, the House argues, is too much turf for a governor to seize without the Legislature.
* * *
The governor's lawyers filed their answer on Monday. First, they challenged whether this is even a proper use of quo warranto, and urged the Supreme Court just to stay out of it.
They said the governor is simply obeying federal law, which provides for these kinds of gambling compacts. He is not creating any new law, and not infringing on the power of the Legislature.
I am just a dumb layperson, but I like the House's argument better.
When the House filed this case, one of the governor's top guys said it was "easier to throw rocks than be a leader."
But this is a legitimate question. Crist may be a handsome, popular and cheerful fellow, and he might even win this argument.
Yet in this case, he is still the Sheriff of Nottingham. We common folk are entitled to ask him to prove his power in court. And so, once more - quo warranto, governor?
* * *
After a few weeks off, don't you feel like a live chat on TroxBlog? From noon to 1 p.m. today I'll be online, taking questions and comments about current events. Seems like the baseball stadium could be Topic A....