If you can keep it II

LAGuy puts his finger on the heart of the problem, asking whether, if a state constitution guarantees citizens something, a quality education, say, what are courts to do but enforce it?

Okay. Let's say we're guaranteed a quality education. Cost (per the Kansas Supreme Court) $2.5 billion.

And of course, we're guaranteed health care (quality health care). Cost (per, let's say, the Kansas Supreme Court) $3.0 billion.

And what the heck, let's say we're entitled to a couple of other absolutely necessary things, cost $5.0 billion. Total budget: $10.5 billion.

Just to simplify, let's say, not that our total tax collections are $10 billion, a half billion short, but that our total state economy is $10 billion, a half billion short. What order is the supreme court going to issue then? Pixie dust?

My question is, is separation of powers essential to American government? If it is, is the spending power legislative? I think it's Nebraska that has a unicameral legislature; why not go a step further? Is there any reason to think that a state could not freely adopt a government that did not include separation of powers at all?

Update: Anonymous writes: How many times are the courts supposed to tell the legislature "do it" until they decide to take it into their own hands? As the judges say, no remedy means no right.

Columbus Guy responds: That's fine, but what Anonymous does not understand, or ignores, is that then the court is no longer acting as a court, but is instead acting as a legislature. If you collapse separation of powers by expanding judicial review to the point where the legislature has no discretion, you've eliminated the legislature, by making it a mere advisory body to the court. Anonymous seems to be familiar with the decision, as his language accurately reflects the court's language. But he seems unclear that there simply isn't any reasonable grounds to say that 2.6 billion is constitutional, but 2.45 billion isn't. That's just silly. This Kansas court is a joke.

But, as I implied earlier, if Kansas wants to adopt a single-branch government, why not? That's up to the people of Kansas. (Although I have to say, it does strike me as un-American. Separation of powers is a pretty important, fundamental concept.)