How Republicans are trying to strip power from Democratic governors-elect


#21

These changes are being hurried in a lame duck session before the new governor who could veto the legialtio, is in place.

Sad that working with the newly elected governor is inititated as “conflict”.


#22

Sun Tzu 101 – attack while your opponent is weak.

The incoming Democrat House as indicated that they plan to open conflict on President Trump. I don’t see anybody expressing sorrow about that…


#23

we can do better than this?

What powers are they planning to strip?


#24

There’s been quite a bit of trying to limit the President’s authority to higher and fire Executive Branch members like Comey and Mueller and to set policy in Executive Branch agencies, such as the CIA and FBI. There are also some attempts to restrict the President’s authority to set foreign policy in the wake of the Khashoggi murder. In practical terms, I doubt there’s much they can do to strip any powers because the of the Republican majority in the Senate, but I’m sure they would if they could.


#25

A check according to established divisions of power. Now they are changing the established divisions of power.

That just confirms my point that the decision to change the powers of the governor were not based on what powers they thought a governor should have - only based on what powers they though this particular governor should have.


#26

Talk of this or bills prepared?


#27

Democrats picked up six new houses and several governorships – were watching California very closely. They want what California has and are likely to pass the three laws California did to seal their permanent power entrenchment: Motor Voter laws that register voters whether they like it or not, absentee ballots mailed to voters whether they like it or not, and ballot-harvesting with no chain of custody by absolutely anyone.

Democrats are salivating in other states to put these measures through, Ring notes. They made gains in the last election, with six new legislative houses and several governorships, and now completely control 14 statehouses, including governor and upper and lower houses, so those states are likely to see the same kind of electoral rigging as California, via new laws.

Maine is going to get it. Washington is going to get it. Nevada, Colorado, and New Mexico are going to get it. So are Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, and Rhode Island. Some, such as Washington and Colorado, likely already have at least some of it, according to various posts on Twitter.

There are 11 more states with partial Democratic control, either through the state Senate or state lower House, or else its governorship.

Read more: https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2018/12/ballotharvesting_coming_to_a_state_near_you.html#ixzz5YvnWps97
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook


#28

I think it’s shameful and un-American yet I did hear on NPR of all places that both parties have stooped this low before.


#29

http://lucianne.com/thread.aspx/?artnum=959048

Ballot-harvesting, not just for California anymore…


#31

This seems to be just an example of checks and balances at work. Isn’t the power being “stripped” power that was bestowed in the first place by the legislature? I assume Wisconsin has a constitution that enumerates what the Governor’s inherent powers are and that the legislature can’t take these away (outside of a constitutional amendment). It only makes sense that a legislature would delegate more to a governor that was in agreement with them and less to one that was not. If people want different laws, they need to elect different legislators, not just a different governor.


#32

that’s why we jerry mendered the district to keep the dems from stealing the legistlator.


#33

Then the outgoing Congress should do something about that while they still have the power. I don’t suggest it though because what goes around…


#34

Did a pretty bad job of gerrymandering if you lost a few seats.


#35

That is exactly what does not make sense. The powers associated with a particular office should not depend on who holds that office at any one particular time. That is why John Adams famously called a republic “a government of laws, not of men.” What you are suggesting is to make the laws variable according to the man in office. John Adams would not approve.


#36

what has stopped them?

Well judicial activism for one thing. Thanks for providing the example.

Judges in Hawaii and liberal circuit courts.

Another thing that has stopped them is that too many public representatives in the Republican Party are not committed to immigration reform.


#37

But isn’t the objection that the people wanted changes, which is why they elected a governor from a different party? And they are mad because now he will be less likely to make those changes? It seems the people upset with this also want the laws to be variable based on the man in office.

In general, that’s the whole point of electing different people–we want them to make different laws than the people who were in there before. If we wanted the status quo, the status quo would have been elected. The problem is this should be the case with legislators, not the executive, which should be based on who will do the best job of executing the laws.

But this goes back to a larger problem: legislatures delegating their authority to the executive branch, specifically certain agencies, in order to eschew responsibility. As I said before, if people want different laws and different powers delegated to the governor, they need to elect different legislators.


closed #38

This topic was automatically closed 14 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.