Tags

, , , , ,

My Note –

I was using Microsoft Word 2007 last night to make these really great nifty bar charts of the information from California’s budget and when I tried to post them in my blog – it didn’t post. So, I tried to figure out how to do that which is going to take some more work and maybe an online tutorial to learn how to do. However, I did make a more extensive bar chart in the process of working on it that included more relationships using the amount of money appropriated from the general fund for higher education, the total derived from special funding for higher education from the state budget, compared to the total for K-12 and then added the revenues, totals and expenditures from another column and from another chart. When the bar graph was completed, one of the totals represented an obscene relationship much greater than the total revenues. So, I went back and tried to understand what the real relationship is between the total amount of money California has had available to spend and the percentages or ratios they chose to spend on education, particularly higher education / state colleges / state university systems / and state post-secondary schools generally.

What is the true revenue picture? Is it that total in revenues or is it the total that includes all the special funds, bonds, and whatever other tricky funding revenues they have had available? I thought about it all night and this morning realized that whether those were real monies or not – they were treated as real money within the budget therefore the total revenue is not the “total revenues” as claimed, but rather the total inclusively with the bond, special funding, special leveraged financing, and whatever else. That means, when they had the choice these excess dollars were available and that they did use the amount up to the complete totals to do as pleased. Hmmm.

In other words – here is what I found:

People QuickFacts California USA
Population, 2008 estimate 36,756,666 304,059,724
Households, 2000 11,502,870 105,480,101

(from)

California Quick Facts from the US Census Bureau

http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/06000.html

***

This chart shows revenues and expenditures that do not include the total revenues from bonds, special funds, financing, investment income revenues, special bonds, and leveraging plays. It is the same revenue totals that apparently the state government attempts to spend up to an identical amount of this revenue each year, such that it looks like all the money is accounted for that was available. And, although the revenues and expenditures on this chart are not identical – they are close enough that a bar graph makes them look tolerably like nearly the same line.

http://www.dof.ca.gov/budgeting/budget_faqs/information/documents/Chart-A1.pdf

**

But, looking at this chart – a truer picture (although not a complete picture) comes into view –

http://www.dof.ca.gov/budgeting/budget_faqs/information/documents/CHART-C1.pdf

Looking at the last column to the right side of this document – there are two totals in that column. The light print total at the top of each entry matches the expenditures from the other chart. However, these amounts are neither the true expenditures, nor the true income generated revenue for the state because that is actually identified in the bold total under the line. Not only is it what they did spend, it was available revenues made possible through a number of financial vehicles and then not used as a total revenues entry in other account definitions, such as the previous chart.

So, with that as the basis – my bar chart had a Totals 2 point that was in the stratosphere compared to both the money being spent on higher education from the general fund and from all sources or even in comparison to the money spent totally for K-12 education. At the same time that the state budget actually had received staggering sums from all sources, the ratio of funds spent on education and particularly for higher education which was originally to come from the general fund at the same or at slightly higher levels than the K-12 education total – were a mere pittance compared to the actual totals available.

This makes it a little clearer – (but I wish I knew how to get those bar graphs I made into this post) –

1991-92                                      $43,327.0

1992-93                                      $40,948.3

That is what it looks like they had as expenditures that appears in the column totals, but

1991-92                                      $83,002.4

1992-93                                      $86,062.9

This is what they actually had and actually spent (only includes the categories on this chart so there’s more) –

http://www.dof.ca.gov/budgeting/budget_faqs/information/documents/CHART-C1.pdf

At a time when, the state of California was listing revenues of

1991-92                                      $42,026.50

1992-93                                      $40,946.50

Apparently there were not only able to spend over $83,0002.4 (millions / billions) and $86,062.9 (millions / billions) on the listed programs due to special bonds, special taxes, financing bonds, and other program funding – they also had at least that much as revenues plus whatever other special vehicles were available to cover other programs, building programs, agency costs, mandates and projects using those vehicles.

When I made the bar chart, (I will include the number group below that I used, immediately below is a sample) – I used the numbers from the two charts and included these categories –

Higher Education 1 – which were funds taken from the general fund (at a staggeringly lower ratio than legally required)

Higher Educ – which offers the total including bonds, and special funding they claimed on their charts

K-12 – using the total amount allowed me to see the ratio and percentage of what was originally supposed to be matched equally or exceeded by the higher education funding (which wasn’t there in any proportion that was close as required)

Expenditures – from the Chart A-1 group

Totals – from the Chart C-1 total in light print (last column to the right)

Revenues – from the Chart A-1 group (which is damn close to the totals in light print and the expenditures on Chart C-1)

Totals 2 – using the bold print totals from the last column in Chart C-1 (only includes the programs listed – not whole state budget)

H.Edu 1 H. Educ k-12 Expenditures Totals Revenues TOTALS2
1991-92 $5,831.20 $10,317.60 $18,401.90 $43,327.00 $43,327.00 $42,026.50 $83,002.40
1992-93 $5,044.20 $9,924.50 $20,921.60 $40,948.30 $40,948.30 $40,946.50 $86,062.90

(above sample from my chart for making the bar graphs taken from California state budget literature found online)

* The possibilities that I can see from this are:

1. The investment engineers and account managers in the state of California are doing the same thing that most states are doing which is to make sure the revenues and expenditures columns are nearly the same and letting it go at that.

2. They are using the expenditures and revenues columns to prove an answer that the state is broke or in trouble financially, even at times when it is not.

3.  That the state budget of California, having not appropriately incorporated the real revenue totals from all sources, including bond streams and other financial schemes, among other things – is not a true and accurate picture of the financial resources of the state, its agencies, its school systems, its higher education system nor of the state budget.

4. The state budget of California is intentionally a fantasy – because when I made those bar graphs, it was obvious that the Totals2 amount was and is “in the stratosphere” and does represent real money that is being spent, being acquired, processing as available funds and is being leveraged, manipulated, invested or utilized as part of the entire pool of available funds and financial resources by the state Treasurer’s office including their investment managers / brokers / financiers.

5. The current budget cuts are not a solution to the claimed budget deficit in California. Not having to borrow and pay out on bonds and loans at some incredibly higher rate to satisfy investors, hedge fund managers, sovereign wealth funds, bankers, stock market brokerages, and whoever else has their hands in it is the actual answer that solves the problem. However, the Treasurer’s office members are unable to do that because they are not in a position to bargain effectively with those sources as someone else would be, such as the US Treasury or Federal Reserve, SEC or other fiduciary members.

6. The bubbly, buddy – buddy system has done more to hurt California than independent well-thought out applications of intelligence ever would have and has yielded a sport of financing plays and finance in general which at the same time increased the real revenues available to the state of California and her citizens – also undermined the funding resources available to higher education, to education overall and illegally undermined the financial mandate for all of California’s higher education and post-secondary educational resources to be available to all tuition free and without economic exclusion, discrimination, racism, or gender / age inequalities.

7. Personally, The ability to find these things was not rocket science – therefore, I know the facts were there all along and visible to all. It isn’t a game when the lives of American citizens are destroyed, when our children’s future is bound up by ignorance, shame and lack of knowledge, lack of education, lack of principled understanding of basic information in science, math, use of English, communication skills, history, geography, sociology and the greater world around them. And, when the educational resources that were paid for, fought for and where revenues were more than astronomically available for them had they not been diverted are not made available to every one including the adults in our communities – it is unnecessarily crippling to their opportunities to survive and to thrive. How dare they raise tuition to the state colleges and universities in California or in Georgia or anywhere else in America in order to economically exclude American citizens from attending and from having access to those resources? Who the hell do they think they are?

– cricketdiane, 03-10-10

***

H.Edu 1 H. Educ k-12 Expenditures Totals Revenues TOTALS2
1976-77 $1,862.90 $2,923.80 $3,396.80 $10,370.60 $10,370.60 $11,284.10 $20,526.90
1977-78 $2,015.90 $3,209.60 $3,682.40 $11,613.10 $11,613.10 $13,622.50 $21,169.90
1981-82 $3,270.40 $5,049.20 $8,600.00 $21,445.30 $21,445.30 $20,824.30 $35,637.30
1982-83 3,230.20 5,173.10 8,727.30 $21,461.50 $21,461.50 $20,943.30 $37,294.70
1986-87 4,543.20 7,477.80 13,950.30 $31,227.20 $31,227.20 $32,277.10 $52,582.70
1987-88 $4,842.70 $7,993.90 $14,543.20 $32,751.80 $32,751.80 $32,264.90 $55,018.30
1991-92 $5,831.20 $10,317.60 $18,401.90 $43,327.00 $43,327.00 $42,026.50 $83,002.40
1992-93 $5,044.20 $9,924.50 $20,921.60 $40,948.30 $40,948.30 $40,946.50 $86,062.90
1996-97 $6,180.10 $11,574.20 $23,447.60 $49,088.10 $49,088.10 $49,219.80 $95,908.50
1997-98 $6,624.50 $12,083.10 $25,557.30 $52,874.40 $52,874.40 $52,874.40 $100,176.80
2001-02 $9,645.30 $17,293.40 $35,914.80 $76,751.70 $76,751.70 $72,238.60 $145,842.60
2002-03 $9,487.90 $17,878.20 $42,110.00 $77,482.10 $77,482.10 $80,563.60 $161,511.20
2006-07 $11,210.50 $18,435.30 $49,095.00 $101,413.00 $101,413.00 $95,415.40 $182,903.10
2007-08 $11,861.80 $18,864.20 $50,988.60 $102,985.70 $102,985.70 $102,574.00 $194,276.10
2009-10 $10,566.30 $17,582.50 $45,077.30 $86,092.00 $86,092.00 $88,083.40 $221,798.60
2010-2011 $11,836.20 $18,389.50 $43,944.40 $82,901.30 $82,901.30 $89,322.10 $200,467.80

The Chart I made from the California government budget documents – The column that is evidence of criminal choices to undermine the universal higher education available to all is the H.Edu1 column – because the state is mandated to provide enough from the general fund alone, (regardless of what else is added by special bonds, etc.) to match or better the total amount acknowledged to be needed to educate the population in K-12 placements which is indicated by the total amount being spent to do it. There is to be a place for them to each graduate and go on to college or university as well as covering each and every adult citizen of California who wants to go to college or university and that mandate is still the law in the State of California.

On one of my recent posts, there is a copy of the California law guaranteeing access to higher education for all the citizens of California and there are very smart people in California that do not have to put up with this criminal undermining of the educational resources in the state of California. That is a fact.

– cricketdiane

***

51004.  The Legislature hereby recognizes that it is the policy of
the people of the State of California to provide an educational
opportunity to the end that every pupil leaving school shall have the
opportunity to be prepared to enter the world of work; that every
pupil who graduates from any state-supported educational institution
should have sufficient marketable skills for legitimate remunerative
employment; that every qualified and eligible adult citizen shall be
afforded an educational opportunity to become suitably employed in
some remunerative field of employment; and that these opportunities
are a right to be enjoyed without regard to economic status or the
characteristics listed in Section 220.

(from)

EDUCATION CODE
SECTION 51000-51009

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=edc&group=50001-51000&file=51000-51009

The entire section is below, which entitles every qualified and eligible adult citizen shall be afforded an educational opportunity through the state supported colleges, community colleges, technical schools, and university system in order to become suitably employed in some remunerative field of employment; and that these opportunities are a right to be enjoyed without regard to economic status (etc.) to each and every citizen of the state of California. (period).

My Note – this section includes a high school education and colleges supported by the state which specifically prepare citizens with skills adequate to current employment that includes computer literacy, literacy and the skills of comprehension, technology literacy, mathematics, sciences, writing and English use skills, along with the types of thinking skills required by today’s highly competitive business atmosphere, among other things. Includes economic and
financial literacy considering the way the market is today. And somewhere, the law has a clause that says if for some reason, the state cannot or will not do that for adult students through the state college and university system, then it is required to pay the cost of private tuitions for those students at private or non-state schools, colleges and/or universities. I’ll keep looking – it is still there somewhere. But the section means, that the state cannot remove the funding – they can’t raise tuitions and fees – that is economic exclusion of citizens. It isn’t a question of whether the state of California will cover the appropriate levels of funding for the schools, high schools, colleges and universities – the law says that it is required at an appropriate level without increasing costs to students or their families. The only real choice is for the state to choose how to cover those funds and they can’t continue stealing them from the poor people, elderly, handicapped, disabled and disadvantaged because those are mandated funds. Sooner or later, somebody’s going to call them on that one too and take it to court.

–          cricketdiane

(The full section – )
EDUCATION CODE
SECTION 51000-51009

51000.  This chapter may be known as the George Miller, Jr.,
Education Act of 1968.

51002.  The Legislature hereby recognizes that, because of the
common needs and interests of the citizens of this state and the
nation, there is a need to establish a common state curriculum for
the public schools, but that, because of economic, geographic,
physical, political and social diversity, there is a need for the
development of educational programs at the local level, with the
guidance of competent and experienced educators and citizens.
Therefore, it is the intent of the Legislature to set broad minimum
standards and guidelines for educational programs, and to encourage
local districts to develop programs that will best fit the needs and
interests of the pupils, pursuant to stated philosophy, goals, and
objectives.

51003.  It is the intent of the Legislature that explicit, rigorous
statewide academic standards be adopted for all pupils enrolled in
public schools.

51004.  The Legislature hereby recognizes that it is the policy of
the people of the State of California to provide an educational
opportunity to the end that every pupil leaving school shall have the
opportunity to be prepared to enter the world of work; that every
pupil who graduates from any state-supported educational institution
should have sufficient marketable skills for legitimate remunerative
employment; that every qualified and eligible adult citizen shall be
afforded an educational opportunity to become suitably employed in
some remunerative field of employment; and that these opportunities
are a right to be enjoyed without regard to economic status or the
characteristics listed in Section 220.
The Legislature further recognizes that all pupils need to be
provided with opportunities to explore and make career choices and to
seek appropriate instruction and training to support those choices.
The Legislature therefore finds that fairs as community resource and
youth leadership activities are integral to assisting and guiding
pupils in making choices and therefore encourage the further
expansion of cooperative activities between schools, youth leadership
activities, and community resources. Among community resources of
particular significance in providing information on various career
opportunities are vocational and occupational exhibits,
demonstrations and activities conducted at fairs.

51005.  In order to carry out the intent of Section 51004, the
Department of Education shall annually encourage school districts to
plan programs and activities which utilize the resources of fairs and
youth leadership activities as an integral part of the vocational
instructional program and career decisionmaking.

51006.  The Legislature finds that the increasing integration of
computers and computer technology into our economy has profound
implications for our society, and equally important implications for
state educational policy.
The Legislature also finds that the methods of distribution of
computer resources in the public schools will have a substantial
effect upon the state’s ability to meet the economic, political, and
social challenges of the new technological era. Without adequate and
early exposure to a basic computer education and computer resources,
many students may be placed at a significant disadvantage in their
opportunities to secure success in academics and the job market in
the future. As females compose 51 percent of the student population
in the state’s public elementary and secondary schools, and ethnic
minorities constitute over one-third of that population, it is
imperative that California adopt a policy to ensure equitable access
to technological education programs.

51007.  (a) It is the policy of the State of California that all
students enrolled in the state’s public elementary and secondary
schools, regardless of race, creed, color, national origin, gender,
physical disability, geographic location, or socioeconomic
background, shall have equitable access to educational programs
designed to strengthen technological skills, including, but not
limited to, computer education programs.
(b) It is the intent of the Legislature that state appropriations
for educational programs designed to strengthen technological skills,
including, but not limited to, computer education programs, shall
have the goal of ensuring equitable access to those programs for all
students.
(c) It is the intent of the Legislature that this section shall
not be construed to preclude funding of programs designed to serve
certain categories of students as part of the state’s efforts to
target areas of high need.

51008.  The State Board of Education shall ensure that the state
curriculum and framework, where appropriate, include instruction on
Cesar Chavez and the history of the farm labor movement in the United
States, and that the state criteria for selecting textbooks include
information to guide the selection of textbooks that contain sections
that highlight the life and contributions of Cesar Chavez and the
history of the farm labor movement in the United States.

51009.  The first week of April is hereby deemed to be Labor History
Week throughout the public schools, and school districts are
encouraged to commemorate this week with appropriate educational
exercises that make pupils aware of the role the labor movement has
played in shaping California and the United States.


http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=edc&group=50001-51000&file=51000-51009

It is the law – they cannot deplete the economic resources of school systems including the state colleges and universities because of the law expressed above. And, the exclusion of students by unreasonable tuitions and / or unreasonable fees, exorbitant book costs, lab costs, activities fees, registration fees or in fact, any other kind of fees is against the law in the state of California. Creating an economic bias against the majority of California citizens by raising tuitions at state schools to $10,000 or more a year is illegal. It will take a class action suit or other legal measure against the decision-makers who made these choices. They broke the law when they did it.

– my note, cricketdiane

(And no, they can’t change the law next week or next year in order to fix it – they are still liable for the time during which it was in place up to and including right now.)

***

(This section is very interesting too – it means that the Legislature recognizes a highly skilled, technologically savvy marketplace strong in math and science – it requires them to provide a definition of education for all students which includes this level and skill sets in order to have marketable job skills as required by the above law – and therefore they are responsible for providing them.)
52951. The Legislature finds and declares as follows:
(a) California is a national and international leader in
scientific and technological development. California employs 45
percent of the nation’s computer specialists and 21 percent of its
engineers. The economic growth of California and the nation will
depend in a large part upon its ability to remain competitive with
other states and with foreign nations. Maintaining our preeminence
will be dependent upon persons who have a solid foundation in
science.
(b) There is growing concern about science illiteracy within the
state’s adult population. A National Science Foundation Report shows
that less than half of all high school juniors and one-third of high
school seniors take a science course. As a result, American high
school students receive only one-half to one-third the exposure to
science as their counterparts in other developed countries, such as
Japan, West Germany, East Germany, and the Soviet Union.
(c) California has an insufficient number of teachers trained in
science and mathematics. There were 1,400 positions filled by
teachers not trained in science or mathematics in 1985, and there is
a projected shortage of 2,000 to 2,500 positions being filled by
teachers not trained in science and mathematics in 1986.
(d) Due to the higher entry level salaries provided by the private
sector for college graduates trained in science and mathematics, the
growing shortage of qualified science and mathematics teachers will
continue.
(e) There are exemplary programs in California that upgrade the
training of science teachers and train science teachers.
(f) Complex problems must be overcome if science education is to
advance students to a level of competence appropriate for an
increasingly technological society. The decline in science
achievement of students in schools, colleges, and universities in
California affects all students, but is particularly acute for women
students, minority students, and students from lower income groups.
The problems related to this situation include, but are not limited
to, all of the following:
(1) A lack of understanding of the fundamental principles of
science and their implications for everyday life.
(2) Inadequate mastery of knowledge of science by students and
many teachers, resulting in poor comprehension of college coursework
and high attrition rates for those students who have these
deficiencies.
(3) A tendency among girls and young women to avoid taking science
courses in high school, which limits their choice of educational
options, and screens them out of future careers in science,
engineering, and other science-related professions.
(4) Lack of science instruction at the elementary school level to
enable all students, including female, minority, and low-income
students, to develop skills and attitudes which will enable and
encourage them to pursue science successfully in later grades.
(5) A critical shortage of qualified teachers, with significant
numbers of science teachers leaving the classroom for nonteaching
jobs, and few students training to take their places.
(6) Lack of teachers’ training in the use of laboratory equipment
and procedures, as well as the lack of laboratory-based facilities in
schools, thereby reducing the opportunity for students to receive
“hands-on” science instruction.
(7) Staffing of more than 25 percent of science classes by
teachers not certified to teach science.
(g) While some colleges and universities are improving courses in
the teaching of science, this will not fully address the problem,
since the number of new teacher candidates is relatively small.
Therefore, the Legislature recognizes the need to assist existing
teachers in gaining the knowledge necessary to improve science
education for all students.
(h) The science problem is shared by all segments and levels of
California education, and the problem can best be addressed by
cooperatively planned and funded efforts.
(i) Appropriate models for cooperative, intersegmental approaches
to solving the science problem should address the findings of state
and national science associations, including, but not limited to, the
National Science Foundation and National Association of Science
Teachers. The comprehensive approach will give special attention to
providing in-service training of classroom teachers, defining more
clearly those standards of science knowledge required at each school
level, and developing curricula and instructional strategies to meet
these standards. Whenever possible, existing resources shall be
pooled to support this comprehensive program. Models for the program
may include the California Writing Project; the California
Mathematics Project; the EQUALS Project; the MESA Project; the
University of California at Irvine’s Summer Science Institute; the
Lawrence Hall of Science’s Programs for Schools; and the Lawrence
Livermore Laboratory’s Science Education Center, Summer Science
Institute, and Lesson In-service Science Workshop for Elementary and
Middle School Teachers.

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=edc&group=52001-53000&file=52950-52951

***

(CNN) — A California movement protesting $1 billion in budget cuts to the state’s university system appeared to have burgeoned into a nationwide demonstration on Thursday.

Students and professors in dozens of states were challenging administrators and state lawmakers over budget cuts and tuition increases that they say are reducing students’ class options and increasing their expenses.

[ etc. ]

State funding for the California State University system was reduced by nearly $1 billion for the academic years between 2008 and 2010. Schools have responded by increasing fees, canceling classes, cutting student support programs and furloughing professors. Fees have increased 182 percent since 2002. Class waiting lists have doubled or tripled.

“The less affordable education becomes, the less likely low-income students will be able to get a college education,” said Lillian Taiz, president of the California Faculty Association and professor of history at California State University Los Angeles.
In addition to protests at numerous public colleges and universities in California, demonstrations also were planned for K-12 schools Thursday, according to the Student Activism blog.
See where the protests are happening
On the other side of the country, in Georgia, a legislative committee proposed $300 million in cuts to the state’s college system, on top of the $100 million cut in the past two years, University of Georgia President Michael F. Adams wrote in an open letter to students, faculty and staff.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/03/04/us.day.of.action/index.html
***

My Note –

These are the real revenue numbers available to all the programs listed on the chart that I used for numbers in my bar graphs –

(in millions, so add a bunch of zeros on these numbers – and this doesn’t include capital building projects and other bonds, revenues, or financing for other state and federal programs in the state of California, etc. -)

1996-97 $6,180.10 1996-97 $95,908.50
1997-98 $6,624.50 1997-98 $100,176.80
2001-02 $9,645.30 2001-02 $145,842.60
2002-03 $9,487.90 2002-03 $161,511.20
2006-07 $11,210.50 2006-07 $182,903.10
2007-08 $11,861.80 2007-08 $194,276.10
2009-10 $10,566.30 2009-10 $221,798.60
2010-2011 $11,836.20 2010-11 $200,467.80

derived from –

http://www.dof.ca.gov/budgeting/budget_faqs/information/documents/Chart-A1.pdf

$221,798.60 in 2009-2010 to spend on these programs including higher education which only received the crumbs above from the general fund and was given gross cuts in funding instead.

(and)

$200,467.80 to spend in 2010-2011 just on these programs alone and they didn’t choose to do any better than to destroy the education system in California and jeopardize the participation of every qualified student already enrolled in the California colleges and universities, let alone the fact they are illegally discriminating against enrollment in the University system by economic exclusion despite the law that says higher education in California is to be available to every citizen.

Further –

Whether it is the “no child left behind” core laws that were placed into effect, then deprived of funding, or the California universal education laws that were placed into law legally requiring those resources to be made available and accessible to all, then deprived of funding illegally – the legislators who did not financially underwrite them were breaking the law, breaking their oath of office and breaking the guarantees of law in our Constitutions, both state and federal.

These legally binding agreements between the states, the federal government, federally legislated agencies, state education systems, and treasuries with the people / the citizens / the law / their oaths of office / their authority and their Constitutional office are mandated to be financially underwritten with the collective resources of the people to a level that accomplishes the intention and measure of the law. They didn’t do that. When they chose not to do that, it was an abuse of their position and authority, breaking the very tenets of the oath of office they took and it was illegal because it was a knowledgeable diverting of funds required by legal mandate in order to do something else with them.

Judicial review

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

This article is about court power over non-judicial branches. For court power over lower courts, see Appellate review.

Judicial review is the doctrine in democratic theory under which legislative and executive action is subject to invalidation by the judiciary. Specific courts with judicial review power must annul the acts of the state when it finds them incompatible with a higher authority, such as the terms of a written constitution. Judicial review is an example of the functioning of separation of powers in a modern governmental system (where the judiciary is one of three branches of government). This principle is interpreted differently in different jurisdictions, which also have differing views on the different hierarchy of governmental norms. As a result, the procedure and scope of judicial review differs from country to country and state to state.

Contents

//

General

Judicial review of administrative acts

Most modern legal systems allow the courts to review administrative acts; i.e., individual decisions of a public body, such as a decision to grant a subsidy or to withdraw a residence permit. In most systems, this also includes review of secondary legislation; i.e., legally enforceable rules of general applicability adopted by administrative bodies. Some countries, most notably France and Germany, have implemented a system of administrative courts, that are charged exclusively with deciding on disputes between the members of the public and the administration. In other countries, including the United States, United Kingdom and the Netherlands, judicial review is carried out by regular civil courts, although it may be delegated to specialized panels within these courts, such as the Administrative Court within the High Court of England and Wales. The United States employs a mixed system in which some administrative decisions are reviewed by the United States district courts, which are the general trial courts, some are reviewed directly by the United States courts of appeals, and others are reviewed by specialized tribunals such as the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (which, despite its name, is not technically part of the federal judicial branch). It is quite common that before a request for judicial review of an administrative act is filed with a court, certain preliminary conditions, such as a complaint to the authority itself, must be fulfilled.

In most countries, the courts apply special procedures in administrative cases.

Judicial review of primary legislation

There are three broad approaches to judicial review of the constitutionality of primary legislation; that is, laws passed directly by an elected legislature.

Some countries do not permit any review of the validity of primary legislation. In the United Kingdom, statutes cannot be set aside under the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty. Another example is the Netherlands, where the Constitution expressly forbids the courts to rule on the question of constitutionality of primary legislation.[1]

The United States is unique as the sole country in which federal and state courts, at all levels (appellate and trial) are able to review and declare the constitutionality (or lack thereof) of legislation that is relevant to any case properly within their jurisdiction. In American legal language, “judicial review” refers primarily to the adjudication of constitutionality of statutes, especially by the Supreme Court of the United States.

A number of other countries whose constitutions do provide for a review of the compatibility of primary legislation with the constitution have established special constitutional courts that have the exclusive authority to deal with this issue: see List of constitutional courts. In these systems, other courts are not competent to question the constitutionality of primary legislation.

Judicial review in specific jurisdictions

Notes

  1. ^ Article 120 of the Netherlands Constitution

See also

External Links

Retrieved from “http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_review

Categories: Court systems | Constitutional law

***

My Note –

CNN reported a little while ago, that $17.2 Billion dollars have been given to higher education systems across the country from the stimulus bill money. They did not indicate if that was $30 million per state or how it was used. It looks like that would be one interesting question. Another good question would be, could either a judicial review be made of these school systems and an audit of their books made or an injunction made to stop the tuition hikes and cuts while they are reviewed in light of education’s legislative requirements that are already in the law.

Whether in states where lottery funds and state funds along with stimulus funds and numerous trust funds are being used to support education, or in states where universal education with no tuition is mandated by law, higher education funds are not being used to support the academic system at the levels and in the manner which has already been written into law with access to all. The budget cuts, tuition hikes and other financial depletion that are occurring now and over the last two years, have ignored the laws about higher education, state colleges and university systems and their missions that was already in our state and federal laws.

– cricketdiane

***

Tuition hikes, increased costs for textbooks and increased fees for registration, student activities, parking, student miscellaneous fees, class fees, lab fees, etc. undermines the possibilities of higher education, college, and university education, technical school education, and every professional school education to the majority of Americans. That can be fixed. At a time when our nation needs every American citizen to acquire a higher level of education and to be more capable, the authorities in nearly every state are making choices to exclude most of America’s population from access to those educational resources by economic exclusion.

(my note from earlier post, cricketdiane)

***

My Note from today –

The ratio of funding from the general funds in the budget of any state across the United States of America that is to be given for the funding of higher education resources where those states want their citizens to accomplish independent self-sustaining, financially sound lifestyles, pay taxes, start successful businesses, provide their own means to support themselves and their children, etc. – is the ratio of the same amount or greater as is paid for the public education system providing education to all other students in the state.

That is because, there are countries around the world who provide competitive employee and business executive / manager skill groups at an education level which far exceeds ours in the United States and if our citizens don’t have it nor have access to the same or better levels of higher education, then they will be a drain on our society just as I am, instead of being competitively placed in the world and in the United States to fend for themselves. And, that is the truth.

And, contrary to public opinion and the opinions of countless conservative thinktanks, keeping over a third or even greater of our population in jails, prisons, institutions and other facilities is not a realistic nor viable solution to the economic problems, the fiscal mismanagement problems, the unemployment problems, the business problems or the social problems in our country. It hasn’t even bought us the time to actually solve them either. By dividing the population that way in order to make it look like the numbers are better than they are and to accommodate an unemployed population that is hopeless and despairing which numbers over 41.2% = the remaining 58.8% relationship that is not employed (see numbers below), there were prisons built and systems created that are standing on air with nothing to support them while not using those resources to actually solve the economic problems that were there long before we faced them.

– cricketdiane, 03-10-10

***

"In February, the civilian labor force participation rate (64.8 percent) and
the employment-population ratio (58.5 percent) were little changed. (See
table A-1.)"
My Note -
How can the civilian labor force participation be 64.8%
and the unemployment be less than 10%? That doesn't add up to 100% in any respect.

(derived from)

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm

Last Modified Date: March 05, 2010

***