An intriguing Illinois decision:
Docket No. 98932-Agenda 7-September 2005.
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Appellant, v. VALDY OLENDER et al., Appellees.
Opinion filed December 15, 2005.CHIEF JUSTICE THOMAS delivered the opinion of the court:
At issue in this case is whether the General Assembly violated the single subject clause of the Illinois Constitution of 1970 (Ill. Const. 1970, art. IV, §8(d)) when it enacted Public Act 88-669 (Pub. Act 88-669, eff. November 29, 1994). The legislation in Public Act 88-669, entitled “An Act in relation to government regulation,” amended, among other statutes, section 1301 of the Illinois Income Tax Act (35 ILCS 5/1301 (West 1994)), to state that a first violation of that section is a Class 4 felony and each subsequent violation is a Class 3 felony. The defendants, Valdy and Malgorzata Olender, had been charged under the amended version of section 1301. Defendants moved to dismiss the indictments against them on the ground that section 1301 had been unconstitutionally amended by Public Act 88-669 in violation of the single subject clause. The circuit court of Cook County granted defendants’ motions to dismiss. The State appealed directly to this court pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 302(a) (134 Ill. 2d R. 302(a)). For the following reasons, we affirm the judgment of the circuit court and hold that Public Act 88-669 violates the single subject clause.
Well, that’s quite interesting. Wouldn’t it be nice if the U.S. Supreme Court had the same regard for the U.S. Constitution that the Illinois court demonstrated for the Illinois state constitution.
In reading the decision, it was interesting to note that the state made the usual attempt to argue that the defendants had no standing rather than attempt to defend its illegal actions.