You seem unclear on the concept of limited government
not to mention freedom and democracy. I'm sure the majority of Germans were all in favour of Kristallnacht; doesn't mean that it was okay or could be justified in a free and democratic society.
|
|
You may be sure, but I'm hoping not.
|
|
I'm familiar with the threat of the tyrrany of the majority.
But when a Constitution says, "The people may enact legislation directly" and the courts rule that they cannot sue to have those Constitutionally enacted laws enforced, what is the point of giving the people that right? You seem to be arguing that the people should not have the right to pass legislation directly. I'm not sure that I don't agree with you. But then why enshrine that right in a Constitution?
I'm also deeply troubled by Scott's arguments that law enforcement officials cannot be compelled to enforce legally enacted laws they, and they alone decide are Un-Constitutional. AFAIK, determining the Constitutionality of legislation is not within the scope of their duties. So I am again left with the question, "What is the point of passing a referendum if there is no guarantee that it will be enforced and may be no direct means of appealing the decision to have that legislation remain unenforced?" I'm not as comfortable as Scott apparently is with allowing politicians to decide what is and is not Constitutional and thereby decide which lawfully enacted statutes they will and will not enforce. |
|
That's not quite what I'm saying.
I'm not saying that Jerry gets to decide what's constitutional or not.
I'm saying that he can't be compelled to defend something that he feels is unconstitutional. If someone challenges a law in court, there's an adversarial process. The judicial people weigh in, the prosecutorial people weigh in, and the advocates weigh in. How the prosecutor (under the executive) weighs in is under their discretion. The judge can rule one way or another; the jury can convict or nullify. The advocates can drop their case or appeal or accept a compromise before the final decision. If at the end of the process, the judge rules that the law stays, then it's on the books and part of the legal framework. If prosecutors refuse to use it, then the legislature can do things like start impeachment proceedings, cut funding, make things difficult for the executive, etc. Checks and balances and all that. That's the way it's always (for reasonable values of "always") been. Laws passed by referendum are the same as any other laws. They can be challenged or modified or thrown out under the adversarial process. My $0.02. Cheers, Scott. |
|
exactly, if the executive refuses to defend
there is means to have the executive replaced
Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 58 years. meep
|
|
What's the difference?
I'm not saying that Jerry gets to decide what's constitutional or not. "What he feels" == "What he thinks" == "What he decides". No? And the court *did not decide* in this case. We still don't have definitive evidence as to whether Prop 8 was Constitutional or not. By "feeling it isn't" Jerry de facto determines that it isn't. And the USSC remained silent. |
|
They said the district court ruling stands. It's decided.
http://www.scotusblo...for-gay-marriage/
** It decided that sponsors of CaliforniaÂs ÂProposition 8, adopted by the stateÂs voters in an election almost five years ago, did not have a legal right to be in the Supreme Court or in a federal appeals court to try to defend that measure from constitutional attack. That is likely to have the early impact of putting into final effect a San Francisco federal judgeÂs 2010 decision striking down Proposition 8 under the U.S. Constitution. Some 18,000 California same-sex couples already had been married when they had a brief chance to do so as the issue developed in that state, but now millions are likely to gain the right to marry when the judgeÂs ruling is implemented by state officials. Happening perhaps in just a few weeks, that would make California the thirteenth  and largest  state to permit such marriages (along with Washington, D.C.). HTH. Cheers, Scott. |
|
Right. They decided not to decide if it was Constitutional.
|
|
The difference is, he's not "The Decider".
The courts are The Deciders on the law.
He can only decide whether and how he wants the state to play in the process. The SCOTUS did decide in this case. Future cases can and will be brought. They could have decided that the outsiders had standing to defend the law. They could have decided that Brown had to defend the law. They could have decided that Prop8 was fine. They could have decided that it was all ridiculous and done a Brown v Board of Education and made gay marriage availability universal. They decided that there was no way that outsiders could defend the law, so the previous ruling stands, and they limited their comments on the other issues. (Tradition is that courts should decide the minimum - sometimes they do, sometimes they don't for good or ill.) Clearer? My $0.02. Cheers, Scott. |
|
But in effect he is.
It's not just that he wouldn't defend it in court, it's that he would not enforce it until it came before a court. I don't think it right and proper that anyone in a law enforcement position can decide which laws to enforce. I'm nowhere near Pollyannish enough to believe that this isn't the case just about everywhere, but this blatant display that such is the case is beyond the pale imo. The bottom line is that Jerry refused to enforce and defend a law because he didn't like it. Law enforcement types have guns and badges (and in the case of the Governor's office, whole standing armies in the form of State National Guards) at their disposal. If the people cannot compel them to do as they dictate - even when they have done so in an explicit, Constitutionally approved manner, then they've lost all control of their government.
|
|
you just figured that out now? :-)
Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 58 years. meep
|
|
OTOH, it's been argued that they should do exactly that.
Mike writes:
I don't think it right and proper that anyone in a law enforcement position can decide which laws to enforce.Then again, if a Californian referendum created a law that, say, all Sikhs and people of Punjabi descent should be interned in camps and eventually exterminated -- then it would be the moral, legal, and constitutional duty of each and every law enforcement officer NOT to obey such an obviously immoral piece of legislation. That was established at Nuremberg a generation ago. Are you saying that's wrong? --
Christian R. Conrad Same old username (as above), but now on iki.fi (Yeah, yeah, it redirects to the same old GMail... But just in case I ever want to change.) |
|
A contemporary example.
Ohio Republicans just passed a 2-year state budget that includes a bunch of restrictive language on abortion that was added during the "conference committee" process. There were no hearings on the amendments, and no opportunity for public comment.
http://innovationohi...es-basic-biology/ Yesterday [June 25] a conference committee met to announce they had added language [view amendment] to the state budget  borrowed from the controversial heartbeat bill  that requires a physician to inform women in writing of the presence of a fetal heartbeat and the statistical likelihood that her fetus could be carried to term. The Department of Health would draft rules for how a fetal heartbeat can be detected, but those rules may only require an external exam. Civil, disciplinary and criminal penalties are included for doctors who purposefully perform or induce an abortion on a woman without fully meeting the new requirements Kasich is a Republican "pro-life" zombie and he will only remove those provisions under extreme duress. Was the process legal? Perhaps - I dunno. Was it right? Of course not. The Republican cowards are again twisting the process to try to get their way when they know they don't have the public and the law on their side. Is the resulting legislation Constitutional? Almost assuredly not (but one cannot tell how the SCOTUS would rule on such things these days - it would depend on Kennedy's mood at the time). Would a sensible governor direct his prosecutors to enforce such provisions? I would say no, and I would say it would be within his prerogatives and duties (to support the Constitution of the US and Ohio) to fight enforcement of such provisions and seek their repeal. FWIW. Cheers, Scott. |
|
The tyranny of the (legislative) majority in action!
Devious and gutless behavior as well.
Alex
|
|
No, I'm not.
But if one truly embraces the idea that it is a good thing for the people to be able to pass legislation directly via referendum then I think it is unreasonable to expect such legislation to be ignored by the State. Particularly when a defense against the enforcement of such abhorrent laws as you suggest exists. Upon passage of such a law, the people (or indeed even the State) could immediately file suit and request an injunction (which if the law is absurd as some that have been suggested here as equivalent to Prop 8) would almost certainly be granted.
I'm saying that should be what happens. If, in the case at hand, Jerry "feels the law is Un-Constitutional" then he should have marched over to the courthouse, filed a claim as such and argued before a judge to grant an injunction. I'm saying that should be the requirement - make a prima facie case and convince a judge you have a reasonable likelihood of success. Not simply "decide" "feel" "conclude" or "intuit" that the law might be Un-Constitutional and decide on your own not to enforce it. The remedy Scott, Bill and perhaps others have suggested that the people can "replace the Governor at the next election cycle" is a solution for the situation in which a Governor has either made a prima facie case against a law past via referendum or joined a suit against a law passed via referendum. The option of having a law enforcement officer deciding on his own which laws to enforce is not palatable to me. Not in the presence of the institutions we have available and which can be used in the manner I suggest. |
|
you could always shoot im, long standing american tradition
Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 58 years. meep
|
|
Followed by that other long standing american tradition
the hugely expensive and drawn out legal battle over who did what to whom and when.
|
|
Not quite
It's to determine who gets *blamed* for what and when.
--
Drew |
|
More precisely, it's to see who runs out of money first.
|
|
Ding ding ding...
I've not got anymore cupie dolls... care for a wafer thin mint?
--
greg@gregfolkert.net PGP key 1024D/B524687C 2003-08-05 Fingerprint: E1D3 E3D7 5850 957E FED0 2B3A ED66 6971 B524 687C |
|
It works that way for all laws, no matter how passed
In NJ Corzine signed the MMJ law on his way out. Christie didn't like it, and did all he could to delay and stonewall implementation. It's up to NJ residents to determine if his pluses outweigh his minuses, and if they want to use that activity (or lack of) as a political statement in opposing him. Pretty much the same, and perfectly reasonable. You can't force those "in charge" to do anything, you merely have to get rid of them on the next cycle.
Note: Christie is a great governer, and no matter how much I may disagree with him on the MMJ issue, it is one of many, and I support him anyway. |
|
Counterpoint on that last bit by Kathleen Geier at WaMo.
http://www.washingto...er_chri045560.php
But conservative infatuation with Christie at least makes ideological sense. What in the world is the Democrats excuse? There are some Republicans that those centrist Democrat dudes adore that I donÂt  Michael Bloomberg, for example. Yet though BloombergÂs economic and education policies seriously put me off my feed, at least heÂs supportive of reproductive choice and same-sex marriage, and his gun control PAC is doing real, positive good. I could never vote for him. Cheers, Scott. |
|
I merely said I support him
Didn't vote for him.
But right now, with the array of tasks on his plate, he's done a pretty good job as an administrator. I don't have to agree with his polices to respect the job he's been doing. |
|
Understood.
I haven't kept up with him all that much. What little I have seen and read (his bullying and punching down, his stopping the tunnel, his opposing equal justice under law, his blocking Medicaid expansion, etc.) wouldn't let me see past that.
Good managers work to get the best out of people, they don't go out of their way to divide them. My $0.02. Cheers, Scott. |
|
Charlie on Christie's latest.
(For those who may have missed it.)
http://www.esquire.c..._Night_In_Newtown Earlier that evening, a Friday night, so as few people as possible would notice, big, rough, tough Chris Christie, the governor of New Jersey, and a guy some delusional souls believe is something more than a run of the mill conservative, vetoed a bill that would have banned a deadly sniper rifle [.50 cal] that fires rounds big enough to bring down, among other things, police helicopters. (That it was Christie's bill in the first place is merely an extraneous layer of chicken shit on the whole proceedings.) Chris Christie wants the presidential nomination of a demented political party, so Chris Christie had to veto his own bill and make sure that New Jersey residents can keep their personal anti-aircraft arsenals. I know I'll feel safer flying into Newark now. And, that night, in Newtown, all was dark. All was quiet. All was normal again. Another teachable moment in which the country learned nothing. <sigh> Cheers, Scott. |
|
Pathetic.. isn't it? [All ... ... now Years ... of it.]
|
|
About that tunnel thing. Remember that?
http://www.esquire.c...ristie-sec-042514
Forgive me, but it bears repeating: Chris Christie's political career is forever down the crapper. Main Justice, a legal news site, broke the news today that the U.S. Securities & Exchange Commission is now working with the Manhattan District Attorney to investigate the Christie Crew's looting of Port Authority funds originally meant to help build a rail tunnel that would've been the nation's largest infrastructure project -- creating thousands of jobs in New Jersey, and easing the commute to and from New York City for hundreds of thousands of New Jerseyans. Couldn't happen to a "nicer" guy. Cheers, Scott. |
|
Thanks.. for a whiff of actual comeuppance. Bye Christie
And, one can hope: many who sailed within her? with a little patience.
|
|
Christie thinks more cross-Hudson capacity may be needed...
http://www.capitalnewyork.com/article/albany/2014/12/8559242/without-irony-christie-embraces-cross-hudson-capacity Hmmm... (via Atrios) Cheers, Scott. |
|
It's time to refill the coffers.
Now that the Port Authority spent its funds on subsidizing NJ projects that should have been paid for NJ taxes. Fool me once, ... Alex "There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge." -- Isaac Asimov |