Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Ok, here is my beef with the article. It kind of feeds on "headline readers"(people that only read headlines" because after the actual article it breaks off a special section with mini-headlines where we are just supposed to take what is written as gospel even though most of it was not covered in the article. I know they are under word limits and they are just doing a summary but it's completely one sided. You cannot honestly tell me that everything that is written happens to be from the democrats point of view. We are just getting one side of the argument of what these bills, laws, rules or processes. Most of the time it's not bias but ingrained biases.
That could be true, but no one has posted a competing list from a different point of view. Is there one?
Quote:
But back to the main point, there is no stripping the governors power here. To change authority or actual power you need to change the Wisconsin state constitution which requires two amendment procedures: one is by calling a constitutional convention, and the other requires that amendments be passed by the legislature and then ratified by voters in a general election.That's not going to happen and has not happened. So the media needs to stop saying his powers are being taken away from him. They just see it as powers taken away from him.
I understand your point that no constitutional powers--broadly construed--are being removed, but that was never the issue.
The issue is that the legislature has passed laws to limit some of the governor's specific duties. In your point-by-point reply, you acknowledge as much. Here are a few of your comments:
Evers vowed to get rid of this private/public partnership, this just moves it to the legislative side of things. Perfectly legal and still does not change any power from Governor.
Puts lawmakers in charge of litigation, allowing them to keep alive a lawsuit to overturn the Affordable Care Act.Gives lawmakers — instead of the attorney general — control over how court settlements are spent. Makes it easier for lawmakers to hire private attorneys at taxpayer expense when they are sued.
All this does allows the legislature to choose it's own attorney, does not take any authority from the governor, again perfectly legal.
Requires Evers to get permission from lawmakers to ban guns in the state Capitol.
Moving something "to the legislative side of things" (your words) is effectively moving "power" from the Executive to the Legislature.
Requiring the Executive to "get permission" (your words) when such was apparently not previously necessary, is effectively moving "power" from the Executive to the Legislature.
No, these are not "constitutional" moves, but they are legislative actions. These moves do limit his practical power (not his overall "constitutional" power), and the practical power of others (Atty General) who work in the Executive branch.
Also, just because it's "perfectly legal" (your words), that doesn't mean it's ethical.
You seem to understand that the Legislature has "done something"--it's just not "stripping the governor of powers," in your view. But they've "done something"--something that required a legislative vote and the current governor's signature. So, how do you characterize what they've done through these measures? If, for example, they're just reclaiming duties that have been lost along the way, why are they doing that now (with an incoming Dem governor), and why didn't they do that when Walker was primed to continue on as governor?
Quote:
BTW, the Governor is in a lame-duck time period however he is still the governor until Jan 7th and the legislature is not a lame duck and actually will have more members come 2019. Increasing Republican control. All the republicans are doing is cementing rules, process and laws or continuing bills that were already voted upon months if not years ago. You cannot tell me that the democrats would not do the same thing because they actually did do the same thing years ago, even springing Jeff Wood from jail to cast the deciding vote on some lame duck bills which ended up not passing but the democrats tried by getting Jeff Wood released from jail.
At the end of Doyle's final term, some Dems did try a power grab of their own, but they were defeated--in part by many Dems who saw the move as unethical. Doyle himself honored Walker's requests, including not to push through new, last-minute appointments.
That's not to say that Dems have always been so honorable, but the current situation sets a bad precedent for state politics in the future.
Quote:
Look politics is fitly, dirty and a lot of behind the back game playing and payback and strategy. It's all legal, sometimes it sucks for Republicans and sometimes for Democrats but we all get our day in the sun. It just so happens the dog is half in the shade
Very true, though politics in the past couple of decades seems to have taken on more of a "revenge culture." It all may be "legal," but it may not be ethical or good for the state.
Quote:
If you you want to debate a single item from here, that would be easier than trying to debunk or have you see it from my eyes than going through a whole paragraph of issues. There are some many strings attached to each issue that it's rarely black and white. Also if any of you Liberals want to debate me that great, but I can't debate all of you. I'm out numbered 20-1 on the Wisconsin forum. I can only fight off 4 liberals at a time
In some ways, it's easier to do the full-paragraph thing, but we'll see how the other folks take this and run.
In truth, perhaps my biggest concern about you is this:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Milwaukee City
I was returning some video tapes, I am very busy man as I assume you are as well. I'll respond later when I have more time.
Video tapes? What ????
Last edited by Empidonax; 12-23-2018 at 09:08 PM..
If, for example, they're just reclaiming duties that have been lost along the way, why are they doing that now (with an incoming Dem governor), and why didn't they do that when Walker was primed to continue on as governor?
Fantastic question! +1
Quote:
Video tapes? What ????
It's a dated reference...I actually use a lot of dated references and quotes from movies or shows and usually nobody picks up on them however I do get a few rep points when someone does. Anyways welcome to the part pal!
Quote:
Very true, though politics in the past couple of decades seems to have taken on more of a "revenge culture." It all may be "legal," but it may not be ethical or good for the state.
Agreed, the old saying of Just because you have the right to do something doesn't mean it's the right thing to do.
Quote:
At the end of Doyle's final term, some Dems did try a power grab of their own, but they were defeated--in part by many Dems who saw the move as unethical. Doyle himself honored Walker's requests, including not to push through new, last-minute appointments.
Actually it was 1 Dem...Russ Decker
Quote:
You seem to understand that the Legislature has "done something"--it's just not "stripping the governor of powers," in your view.
Okay I am going to try to analogize this. Technically the Republicans have not stripped Evers of any powers, I admit I am a stickler for true meanings of words rather than implications.
It's like this: The Republicans are the current GM of the Brewers but "GM Republican" decides to trade away Christian Yelich and Ryan Braun and LoCain when he knows he is probably going to be fired at the end of the season. New Dem Brewers GM still has the same power he would ever have but he doesn't have 3 key players. So yes the 3 key players would help him do a better job but he still hasn't lost any authority. I hope this makes sense, it's not a perfect analogy.
In what the Republicans are doing, are very very minor in actual changes and I don't think they are state changes that will affect how the state does for the next 50 years. If the Republicans did all this in year 1, nobody would have said a peep. I think a lot of this is fake outrage and most people don't understand the actual real world implications and how little if any affect this will have. It's an easy political play to get people worked up and motivated to back a certain candidate.
Perhaps the biggest issue that would have big implications, they punted on. The Supreme court race upcoming, moving that would no doubt help us since for some reason Dem's have lower turnout in non-presidential years. So totaling it all up I don't think the Republicans made any big moves here, it's all very bland changes.
Location: RI, MA, VT, WI, IL, CA, IN (that one sucked), KY
41,936 posts, read 37,041,955 times
Reputation: 40635
That might be one of the worst attempts at an analogy ever. This was a very real stripping of powers, significant powers, that was only stripped because a Dem was elected. Your analogy would me more accurate, though still flawed, if the outgoing GM limited the next GMs powers to make trades and wouldn't allow the new GM to make draft picks without approvals from the other teams (the opposition).
The Republicans COULDN'T do this year one of Evers admin, which is why they did it when they did. One of the problems is that is was so cobbled together and rushed that the long term damage is still yet to be assessed, but it was a significant power grab.
From what I recall, Doyle did not approve the power grab, but my memory is hazy about that.
Quote:
Okay I am going to try to analogize this. Technically the Republicans have not stripped Evers of any powers, I admit I am a stickler for true meanings of words rather than implications.
It's like this: The Republicans are the current GM of the Brewers but "GM Republican" decides to trade away Christian Yelich and Ryan Braun and LoCain when he knows he is probably going to be fired at the end of the season. New Dem Brewers GM still has the same power he would ever have but he doesn't have 3 key players. So yes the 3 key players would help him do a better job but he still hasn't lost any authority. I hope this makes sense, it's not a perfect analogy.
In what the Republicans are doing, are very very minor in actual changes and I don't think they are state changes that will affect how the state does for the next 50 years. If the Republicans did all this in year 1, nobody would have said a peep. I think a lot of this is fake outrage and most people don't understand the actual real world implications and how little if any affect this will have. It's an easy political play to get people worked up and motivated to back a certain candidate.
I see what you're trying to say, but it seems kind of like a semantic game to me.
If certain legislative measures, signed by the Governor, transfer specific duties from the executive to the legislature, and also require that the executive secure permission from the legislature for certain maneuvers, that effectively changes/curtails the executive's power.
Not the overall constitutional power, as you note, but on-the-ground, practical power in specific circumstances.
Both meanings (basically, macro and micro) of the word "power" are valid. It is a word with different scales of meaning.
I would agree that the phrase "stripping the governor of his powers," would not apply here. There has been no wholesale removal of the governor's categorical function and privilege. But at a more close-up level, yes, a few of his powers have been transferred to the legislature, or made contingent upon legislative approval.
Quote:
Perhaps the biggest issue that would have big implications, they punted on. The Supreme court race upcoming, moving that would no doubt help us since for some reason Dem's have lower turnout in non-presidential years. So totaling it all up I don't think the Republicans made any big moves here, it's all very bland changes.
Overall, I think that most of the worst changes made affect the Attorney General, but it will be interesting to see how the changes to executive power affect Evers once he's on the ground running.
That might be one of the worst attempts at an analogy ever. This was a very real stripping of powers, significant powers, that was only stripped because a Dem was elected. Your analogy would me more accurate, though still flawed, if the outgoing GM limited the next GMs powers to make trades and wouldn't allow the new GM to make draft picks without approvals from the other teams (the opposition).
The Republicans COULDN'T do this year one of Evers admin, which is why they did it when they did. One of the problems is that is was so cobbled together and rushed that the long term damage is still yet to be assessed, but it was a significant power grab.
Shameful.
I assure you the world will not end, the state will be just fine. We might not end with a surplus or have lower taxes, but we have seen Governors and Presidents come and go and the world keeps turning. We just went through point by point of the new changes and nothing in there is earth shattering. It's all minor procedural stuff. I also assure Gov. Evers will still have enough power to ruin the state all he wants.
BTW on the attorney general, not even Democrats wanted Josh Kaul as AG. The guy has only worked 3 years in the field and already goes to be the state's top cop. Josh Kaul seems to be 100% political 0% policy. I was not a fan of Schimel but this guy Kaul basically came out of law school and jumped right into a extremely high position. Schimel was actually doing great work on testing the enormous back log of rape kits and solving the opioid issue. Schimel was a rare case of having huge bipartisan support and still losing state wide.
It's like the Obama admin all over again, "we're just going to choose the laws we want to follow".
Good for Tony Evers! The WI GOP attempted to subvert the will of the voters through power-grabbing and voter suppression yet again. The odds of the lame-duck bill getting overturned are high, whether you like it or not. Dealing with the WI GOP, Evers may not be able to get anything done, which could cause voters to believe Evers intentionally didn't fulfill his campaign promises and not reelect him in 2022. Once Evers vetoes any map Republicans draw, Vos and his Koch cronies will be tossed out of office, too. Can't wait!
Last edited by InnovativeAmerican; 01-02-2019 at 11:16 PM..
…. great work on testing the enormous back log of rape kits and solving the opioid issue....
-I haven't been following this futile-waste-of-time thread, but it just caught my eye.
These two points- rape kit testing & opioid issue-- are two meaningless talking points continuously used by the Libs to make it appear "they care."
Please note that AFTER all the usual forensic evidence used to bring charges and hopes of conviction against some particular man in a rape case, the test kit is then processed to help rule out that the guy did it, NOT to prove he did. You can't convict him based on the results-- it either says it wasn't him or else it says he did have relations with the victim, but don't prove the circumstance. You need the traditional evidence for that....Routinely running the tests is a waste of money until you have all the other evidence in place.
And the "opioid crisis" is a MEDICAL problem, not a regulatory problem. Keep the govt out of it if you really want to solve it.
BTW-- if you Libs like govt by Dems, move to Illinois to replace all the smart people leaving. They led the league again in that notable statistic after 40 yrs of strangle-hold control of the govt.
Theory works great in the lab. Empirical evidence from the real world is what counts.
Nevermind, it appears we have John Kerry as Gov, he already changed his mind and now says he is going to follow the law. This guy is way in over his head.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
