|
My Imaginary GF posted:You can try to get someone to step down. You can't threaten someone who is investigating you at the county level with defunding if they don't step down, and then veto their funding. You can veto the funding and then issue a veto statement that its because she wouldn't step down. Perry isn't exactly known for being the sharpest knife in the drawer. That said, he might have a legitimate first amendment argument. How is, 'I will veto this spending unless Lehmberg steps down,' significantly different from, 'I vetoed that spending, because Lehmberg is in charge?' In both cases, Perry is cutting off funding until Lehmberg quits. They're both political statements, the only real difference is tense. You can make the argument that he could have just issued the veto without explaining why he vetoed the funding, but as an elected official, he is generally obligated to explain to voters why he vetoed a particular piece of legislation. thrakkorzog fucked around with this message at 07:25 on Aug 17, 2014 |
#
¿
Aug 17, 2014 07:04
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 13, 2024 21:54 |
|
|
MisterBadIdea posted:Hey, remember Bridgegate? That looked, and looks, pretty bad, right? Even though Christie's still standing and the investigation is probably dead, it's going to taint his career for a while. Because 1) he made the lives of citizens intentionally worse, 2) he did for his own selfish gain, and 3) he did it hidden well away from the public eye. Hey, remember the Moreland commission? Where NY Governor Cuomo gave them carte blanche to investigate NY corruption, until they actually started investigating corruption in the Governer's office, and Cuomo shut the whole investigation down. thrakkorzog fucked around with this message at 08:48 on Aug 17, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Aug 17, 2014 08:35
|
|
|
D-Pad posted:I assume "in these circumstances" refers to the DUI? The DUI shouldn't matter. Either he has the right to try and force an elected official to resign via a veto threat or he doesn't. It's not like there is a law with an asterisk next to it with the text *if convicted of a crime. Part of the argument is that it is purely political. I don't mean that as a strictly R vs D political battle, but as something that can be resolved amongst politicians, straight up old school separation of powers political. If a governor tried to strongarm a state congressman in the way you suggested, it's likely that other state congressman would try to assert their power. The Texas governor has pretty weak executive powers, most of the power comes from having a bully pulpit. (The Railroad commissioner arguably has more power than the governor.) So pissing off an otherwise friendly state senate wouldn't be in the best interest for a governor. thrakkorzog fucked around with this message at 15:24 on Aug 17, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Aug 17, 2014 15:12
|
|
|
Mo_Steel posted:Some useful background on subsection (c) of the Coercion section of Texas law can be found here; it's an analysis of the bill that added the subsection by the House Research Organization, and gives a bit more information on what it's about. It was actually a reconstruction setup where Travis County was set up in charge of investigating state corruption. So Travis County is a bit unique that it is the the only county charged with investigating state level corruption. Rick Perry can't really deny funds to the DA office in cities like Dallas or Houston, because he has no control over their budgets, since the vast majority of their money comes from local property taxes. thrakkorzog fucked around with this message at 16:32 on Aug 17, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Aug 17, 2014 16:05
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:Is Texas a one-party conscent state? A quick google search shows that Texas is a one party consent state. (Most states default to one party consent, unless the state actually requires second party consent.) Although if they actually had recordings of Perry making any unethical offers, it seems like that would be exhibit A against Perry. He said/she said arguments generally aren't all that persuasive, especially if one side has a strong incentive to lie about was said. I'm not a big fan of Perry, since he was perfectly happy to go along with Emminent domain abuse, up until the time it became unpopular, then he tried to remake himself as a Tea Party populist. At this point his oppnents just smash into their own stupidity. For example, He was willing to to spend $1500 per HPV vaccine. One of his buddies transferred out of the of the governor's office, in order to profit off the HPV vaccine. There is an argument to be made that he exceeded his powers. There are also people who accuse Perry of spreading autism. Guess which group gets more headlines. thrakkorzog fucked around with this message at 09:08 on Aug 19, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Aug 19, 2014 07:10
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 13, 2024 21:54 |
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Wait, how on earth did we make it a removable offense for all those people to be intoxicated off-duty? Even in 1987 I thought Texas was pretty pro-booze. Texas really historically hasn't been all that pro-booze, with plenty of dry counties throughout the state. It's easier to spot the county line in some places by the liquor stores on the county line, rather than any sign that you passed through a county.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 21, 2014 05:41
|
|