he's number four eighteen zero zero zero five and i would like the parties to step up counsel who will be arguing and state your name and identify what party you represent you thank you you may proce with morning your honors and may please the court guards again i am peter breen i represent the plaintiffs in this case which are organizations representing the members and several illinois legislators while the point of stand before the court t representing hundreds of thousands of illinois taxpayers we have a simple plea in force to tax fair protective provisions of the illinois constitution as written a balanced budget requirement and our effective date of laws when his positions on these provisions respect the proper constitutional prerogatives of course the authority of the general assembly while also protecting the tax defense position however entirely twists the separation of powers they would on the one hand and fade the power of illinois courts to interpret and force the constitution and the only other hand intrude upon the rights of the general assembly to set its own internal parliamentary rules  requirement that indicates the courts should turn a blind eye to these flagrant violations of the law balanced budget requirements written in words as clear as and concise as the english language affords if this court won't act the law is essentially a dead and the people of the state when they were mailed to their homes of the little packet explaining the constitution they were sold a balanced budget required but at the defendant's arguments if carried through but essentially stripped that protection from mr gree your argument that there was no estan it done correct yes yes that's that's and when you both you know which constitution says the terms are concise and not a lengthy list of how exactly the general would make an excellent but in your brief you talk about that there was no joint resolution determining the amount but where in the constitutional provision is there  respect we contend that in terms of aid the grant of power to the general assembly that comes from the constitution it is a shallow language and in fact the first sentence of section that article eight section to be is that the it it's then subsequent actions not my question but what does the constitution says happens the general summer does not live up to this constitutional requirement but we would contend the constitution says that the appropriation void which is in effect what you're asking us to do isn't that well and yet we are we are asking that the appropriation that we would say the appropriation absence of available revenue estimated it's not about appropriation and said so but but your hono lawsuits that we know of where folks should challenge the other sections or any of the other appropriations and you know the purposes within europe are a problem with political b s my question if it were nineteen seventy i'm going to bring were part of the constitutional convention the revenues and perhaps the attorney general representing the general subject of seo you know this claim that these revenue estimates are bogus it's not true they're going to continue to sell the state of illinois  ding for three hundred million dollars each year and that's how we're balancing the budget this is one example are the court supposed to be examining the study of nine billion dollars budget to determine whether it's th with the constitutional mandate if i may just as we are getting past the question of whether we are even we don't have a revenue estimate at all so there's not even we we've been for all of this entire area of inquiries being stripped from you s can't even begin to develop case law here or even look at the issue to say what could we because that i would respectfully contend that the legislature sets a number you can look at how much goes into the number she fits under the number over the number and we could do that you could however today all we're saying is do you even have an ability to to to wade into what it least up presented to the people or at the convention delegates stop was a duty a limitation the sole really the sole imitation on the to address and handle these kinds of issues i was a trial judge for a long time i don't think i was running to examine the thirty nine billion dollar budget that the term is this in for legitimate based voted on that they had that information none of them were a lot of rules but but what i'm trying to get to is there seems to be a distinction between the language in the constitution versus the language  with its rules already to so actually enact a joint let resolution without calling it something different so be it but that's just how it's the mechanism of mail ok so i don't understand why we shouldn't yeah there's no doubt that if the general assembly wanted to come up with another mechanism and then that certainly there'd be an argument there but it's very clear on this record there was no attempt at all modify such estimates has made the appropriate so as i read the plain language of kaka type inc is your strongest argument it's very clear that there is the expectation that there would be the joint resolution think that certainly the expectation of law in a court of the constitution and the law references says this is how we can form with the duty imposed on us in the constitution the scottish act we created a general somebody created an entity that does the does the estimates and then you either adopted or modified a search of that is all very clearly laid out so that this court terms of political question could very quickly look into what was their joint resolution or was there not if the defendants want to argue that they use some other method method or m we when you look at the constitutional convention it is the lone effective it's a it's a small imposition on the legislators and we step much more specific appropriations limitations of the eight hundred seventy constitution it's a it's a it's a very limited limitation but it's the only limitation in there there's no indication that it was supposed to be a hortatory i'd hear that somehow the general some of it's not supposed to comply with it but you know you know our opening brief pages twenty  twenty seven we could a given the court numerous examples from other states that had a book that had enforced a budget restrictions from their state constitutions and even in some of the cases simultaneously evidencing the respect of the judiciary for the analysis and if it's a bit more complex well then those issues could be litigated down the road it means this court is dealing with very complicated matters all the time would you say that there is a conflict between the constitution and cobb no absolutely to then every single year the appropriation would have to be said to be a non usual need for an unquestioning adherence to the appropriation if this court doesn't declare the law at some point every single year's appropriations going to be a five alarm fire and a hair on fire emergency if this court were to come in our favor on this on this case should someone decide to challenge a part or all of the appropriation at least enough of it the general simply cared about having that appropriation stricken i'm assuming that they context and what that means is that is the point at which the language in the bill is finalized doesn't change after that and the purpose of that is because the purpose of this provision look at first is cleaner where there were changes in the language that had to be approved by the legislature before things could move forward and absolutely right just as holder white and often the override the general simply over veto process the effective date was the date that the second house of the general assembly passed that bill of the third on the third reading which was well before that veto process as opposed to cleaner or moet which involve legislative action and an act of the legislature but the legislature or some part of the body would have done something that's true which would be legislated back again legislative action for the purpose of determining the the legislature did something yeah that's right that's absolutely right change exactly huntin time for him exactly and so whether it overrode the veto which was an app of the legislature that did that would be an act of the legislature but not legislative action i know this sounds like a horrible semantic trap but i don't know if that's so i'm sure there is a case that says exactly what you're saying legislative action means x y  case that was the situation we have that's true there is no case that deals with the motion to reconsider issue but there are cases but they're all dealing with mentor vet list based on its analysis of why do we have this provision in the first place what is its purpose and its purpose is to give the public notice of the content to build here the public was on notice of the content of each b forty made ten twenty seventeen it didn't change after that and it would be inconsistent with the purpose of that constitutional and statutory requirement to hold that one senator can put a motion  constitution does not require a doctor of a trait resolution and this is very important the illinois constitution does not require a formal adoption of an estimate by the general  required that because that act requires a joint resolution adopting estimate that's true and we don't have we do not have that that's right you can't we can't substitute the copper requirement for constitutional requirement so budget boy now absolutely not your honor and that's because that provision the chronic back is directly rather than mandatory there it's clear that there in the in the mandatory directory determination there's a couple steps first you look at the language of the statute determine whether it's mandatory or permissive if you determine it's mandatory use shall that's just then you look at determine whether it's failure specifies consequences for the failure to comply with the statutory wireman or if a directory reading would be inconsistent with the purpose of the statute here the cockpit act contains no no negative consequences it does not say that the general assembly for instance the general assembly's that we are to adopt a drink resolution renders all appropriations void additionally the purpose of the coc that as a whole to believe that within the context of section four of the compact that the general assembly would create a mandatory a mandatory requirement on itself that would result in the invalidation  year on this that the presumption is that it's directory not mandatory language and there's no there's no language in the percent hike the app no language in section four to overcome that presumption because there's no statement of consequence correct governor must provide a form or estimation of funds and the form in which to do it the budget the proposed budget all of that language is absent in section true he was the constitutional  intended to give the general assembly essentially complete discretion on how to estimate how to estimate what revenues are available and you're procreate with it counsel is it your position that there is a conflict july why so in a couple weeks in that bill article thirteen appropriates approximately fifty million dollars to the department of health care of family services to cover services provided under among other things the public code which would there's a concern about insufficient appropriations for services covered by house bill forty between january one and the end of this fiscal year the new i'm nervous appropriations bill provides money for that record is that there's a couple months lag between us as a payment for them but the point is this the point is this any kind of injunctive relief would be an inappropriate it be an equitable because all the services have now been rendered to enter injunction now would be to tell you the service providers who provided the services for the subpoenas of those services you're not on the hook for payment because of the medicaid provisions of house before you are going to apply and then and so in the nature of equity yes so it's retrospect this is specifically with respect to the provision yes article ninety eight makes that retrospective and additionally article ninety one has about seven billion dollars in general funds appropriations to the department for services including services in the public adopt estimate the constitutional convention framers explained that they intended the amount of money to be appropriated for the payment of services in its illinois to be the product of a political back result of the political process and the result of a section or special interest that type of political process to a right at the appropriations number is specifically allocated by the circuit court judgment thank you very much i just want to get a couple points here of the number including some new arguments about their own supporters in the records of the court noted because there was a lot that went on with the passage of that particular bill including floor debate that reference this date issue counsel is really been unable to answer our arguments that we made but also that we had made no movement that there was an insufficient answer to section nine under article four section nine the present clause requires every bill to be presented to the govern within thirty days of passage however a motion to reconsider because it's holding the bill in the chamber and it hasn't yet passed well you don't present the bill for governor of that when the when the bill has passed and there they are putting up on this court an inconsistent reading of the word in section nine and section of time which were enacted together by the constitutional convention there immediately adjacent sections and there's no reason to read them out of kilter with one another as well i would just note that in terms of his  listen to the defendant's arden's about well that would be legislative gamesmanship and there would be all sorts of all sorts of items that he's talking about well what do i think about this particular legislator that what i would respectfully contend that is invading the province of the legislature but is that we would  ke violations separation of powers to go into and say well why is why was the senate senate president pro town is it mr arm why was he found this motion to reconsider we don't especially the courts don't have the ability to invade that  as well as going back to the council's note about millions of illinois voters can replace the general assembly with all due deference as we've seen there are five members of the house rules committee to majority to minority most of the people in illinois don't elect those numbers most of the people in illinois don't elect the vast majority of the members are just some no it was a jury mantra case the supreme court on that topic but councils argument about that somehow the people going all i can take control of this is really it's not not accurate just generally and as well why have a constitution at all why not go to just bare majority rule want to go to a parliamentary system that's not our system as well i would i keep going back to my thoughts as well as the council saying that there is a difference between the constitutional requirement and caught  merely merely puts it merely provides a vehicle to to enforce the constitutional provision and it there is nothing about it that is extraordinary and there's no reason to write into the constitution all of these various that's that's unsupported by his cases and supporting this record but the mandatory directory idea it was really more it's directed more usually at procedural requirements whether the lack of doing a procedur requirement causes something to be illegal or what happened and so that's not not and i don't know of any case we're going to apply directly to the constitution and to provisions that say shall and one of the constitutional debates that the framers said yes the has authority to do set the number but they do not go there's a requirement that they appropriate the number and stay within it in your eyes i can address some of the impending move notice concerns but one of the basic points is our complaint changes it doesn't matter about language changes wrought alpha and they really don't need me they seem to suggest you want to pass bills passed they were passed by the legislature they were coming back from the governor they are in an entirely different framework at that point