There is a law, specifically, which states that you cannot use race as a determining factor when deciding whether or not to sell your house to someone.
There may or may not be a law against Perry's threats to exercise his line item veto on the funding for an agency contingent on someone's resignation. There may even be a law which allows it (though it might not have meant this, specifically, when it was written).
If it turns out that this is, in fact, legal, then it is hard to argue that this is actually abuse of his powers; it is, at worst, unusual usage of his power (and the legislature enacting a law to prevent it in the future would not surprise or sadden me overmuch).* If it was illegal, then, sure - it's an abuse of power.
Abuse of power for the purposes of coercion doesn't become okay because you'd totally for reals not use it for nefarious purposes (this time).
I'm kind of flummoxed by this story, to be honest. It seems like there should've been other ways for Perry to achieve his goal without going for the jugular. How dumb.
Except a certain amount of coercion is considered a normal part of politics. For example, if you don't add this restriction to this the funding in this bill, then I will veto the bill is both a threat, and coercion. The question is whether this particular use of veto power falls into the realm of normal politics or not.
It is not anyone's job to go around threatening rival politicians that, hey, resign from your elected job or I will do [x] to you. Absurd idea.
Richard Nixon, "If you don't resign, we will impeach you and have you removed from office"
One of the constitutionally mandated powers of Congress. Would you like where blackmailing an elected official is part of the Governors remit?
The line item veto is a constitutionally mandated power of the Governor of Texas. Is it allowed for the governor to say, "[Fund my pet project X] or I will line-item veto funding for [something else]"? It would appear that not only is this case, but it has to be the case. Otherwise, the governor wouldn't be allowed to deal with the congress - he'd have to make up his plans for using his constitutionally-mandated powers in total secret, because the other guys knowing about it would make using it illegal.
The question then becomes where the line is drawn on official actions - and, as stated, I'm pretty sure that resigning your post is an official action. So, if the law is loose enough, then that is perfectly okay, too (from a legal standpoint).
* Or, you know, we could get rid of line item vetoes, but that's never going to happen.
Abuse of power for the purposes of coercion doesn't become okay because you'd totally for reals not use it for nefarious purposes (this time).
I'm kind of flummoxed by this story, to be honest. It seems like there should've been other ways for Perry to achieve his goal without going for the jugular. How dumb.
Except a certain amount of coercion is considered a normal part of politics. For example, if you don't add this restriction to this the funding in this bill, then I will veto the bill is both a threat, and coercion. The question is whether this particular use of veto power falls into the realm of normal politics or not.
It is not anyone's job to go around threatening rival politicians that, hey, resign from your elected job or I will do [x] to you. Absurd idea.
Richard Nixon, "If you don't resign, we will impeach you and have you removed from office"
More like "We are voting to impeach today. This will become moot if you resign."
There's a difference between "resign or we'll use our explicit power to impeach you" and "resign or we'll strip your department of funding."
Abuse of power for the purposes of coercion doesn't become okay because you'd totally for reals not use it for nefarious purposes (this time).
I'm kind of flummoxed by this story, to be honest. It seems like there should've been other ways for Perry to achieve his goal without going for the jugular. How dumb.
Except a certain amount of coercion is considered a normal part of politics. For example, if you don't add this restriction to this the funding in this bill, then I will veto the bill is both a threat, and coercion. The question is whether this particular use of veto power falls into the realm of normal politics or not.
It is not anyone's job to go around threatening rival politicians that, hey, resign from your elected job or I will do [x] to you. Absurd idea.
Richard Nixon, "If you don't resign, we will impeach you and have you removed from office"
There was an impeachable offense. Giving somebody the opportunity to resign and maintain a modicum of dignity instead of utter shame and probably prison is completely different from this situation, where the funding to an entirely unrelated ethics program is what was being hung over someone's head.
How is department you are head of unrelated to funding for said department?
Because cutting the funding for an entire department is not related in any way to the actual head of that department?
You can't fuck over people who had nothing to do with this woman's decision to drive drunk, and you certainly can't do it openly. It's petty and possibly illegal, which is up to a jury to decide.
Ok, lets get one thing cleared up. I know I can't speak for all Texans, but for a lot of us this has nothing to do with the drunk driving.
If my local DA did the same thing, then he came out with an honest apology, saying "Look I know I screwed up, I am sorry." I would probably be inclined to say "Hey, we all make mistakes, don't let it happen again."
The problem is the drunk tank videos paint a picture of a very angry and vindictive woman who is willing make threats against people who are just doing their job. They show a person who shouldn't be left in charge of a lego playset, much less any public office of note. We can argue back and forth about whether those videos paint an accurate picture of the woman, but there a plenty of people who feel the attitudes expressed in those videos warrant her removal from office.
Come to think of it, shouldn't she be indicted for using her public office to coerce? If Perry got drunk before he threatened to veto funding for her department, would that make it ok?
Then she should have been removed from the office in a legal way. Nobody in this thread has defended her actions. Her being a terrible person does not give Perry carte blanche to do whatever is necessary to remove her, including possibly illegal coercion.
Yeah, pretty sure if Perry had said, "Resign or I will use legal channels to have you removed from office," we wouldn't be having this conversation.
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
Abuse of power for the purposes of coercion doesn't become okay because you'd totally for reals not use it for nefarious purposes (this time).
I'm kind of flummoxed by this story, to be honest. It seems like there should've been other ways for Perry to achieve his goal without going for the jugular. How dumb.
Except a certain amount of coercion is considered a normal part of politics. For example, if you don't add this restriction to this the funding in this bill, then I will veto the bill is both a threat, and coercion. The question is whether this particular use of veto power falls into the realm of normal politics or not.
It is not anyone's job to go around threatening rival politicians that, hey, resign from your elected job or I will do [x] to you. Absurd idea.
Richard Nixon, "If you don't resign, we will impeach you and have you removed from office"
One of the constitutionally mandated powers of Congress. Would you like where blackmailing an elected official is part of the Governors remit?
The line item veto is a constitutionally mandated power of the Governor of Texas. Is it allowed for the governor to say, "[Fund my pet project X] or I will line-item veto funding for [something else]"? It would appear that not only is this case, but it has to be the case. Otherwise, the governor wouldn't be allowed to deal with the congress - he'd have to make up his plans for using his constitutionally-mandated powers in total secret, because the other guys knowing about it would make using it illegal.
The question then becomes where the line is drawn on official actions - and, as stated, I'm pretty sure that resigning your post is an official action. So, if the law is loose enough, then that is perfectly okay, too (from a legal standpoint).
* Or, you know, we could get rid of line item vetoes, but that's never going to happen.
Legal actions can be made illegal by surrounding actions.
"I fire you."
Completely legal!
"Sleep with me or I fire you."
Completely illegal!
When he used his legitimate powers in order to force another elected official to resign, a power he very much does not have directly, is when he stepped over the line.
Would you be okay with Obama telling Boehner that the treasury is no longer sending any checks out to Republican members of congress?
Abuse of power for the purposes of coercion doesn't become okay because you'd totally for reals not use it for nefarious purposes (this time).
I'm kind of flummoxed by this story, to be honest. It seems like there should've been other ways for Perry to achieve his goal without going for the jugular. How dumb.
Except a certain amount of coercion is considered a normal part of politics. For example, if you don't add this restriction to this the funding in this bill, then I will veto the bill is both a threat, and coercion. The question is whether this particular use of veto power falls into the realm of normal politics or not.
It is not anyone's job to go around threatening rival politicians that, hey, resign from your elected job or I will do [x] to you. Absurd idea.
Richard Nixon, "If you don't resign, we will impeach you and have you removed from office"
There was an impeachable offense. Giving somebody the opportunity to resign and maintain a modicum of dignity instead of utter shame and probably prison is completely different from this situation, where the funding to an entirely unrelated ethics program is what was being hung over someone's head.
How is department you are head of unrelated to funding for said department?
Because cutting the funding for an entire department is not related in any way to the actual head of that department?
You can't fuck over people who had nothing to do with this woman's decision to drive drunk, and you certainly can't do it openly. It's petty and possibly illegal, which is up to a jury to decide.
Ok, lets get one thing cleared up. I know I can't speak for all Texans, but for a lot of us this has nothing to do with the drunk driving.
If my local DA did the same thing, then he came out with an honest apology, saying "Look I know I screwed up, I am sorry." I would probably be inclined to say "Hey, we all make mistakes, don't let it happen again."
The problem is the drunk tank videos paint a picture of a very angry and vindictive woman who is willing make threats against people who are just doing their job. They show a person who shouldn't be left in charge of a lego playset, much less any public office of note. We can argue back and forth about whether those videos paint an accurate picture of the woman, but there a plenty of people who feel the attitudes expressed in those videos warrant her removal from office.
Come to think of it, shouldn't she be indicted for using her public office to coerce? If Perry got drunk before he threatened to veto funding for her department, would that make it ok?
Then she should have been removed from the office in a legal way. Nobody in this thread has defended her actions. Her being a terrible person does not give Perry carte blanche to do whatever is necessary to remove her, including possibly illegal coercion.
I am not a big fan of Perry, so put me in the "If it was illegal, I hope Perry has fun in prison" camp, but I was specifically responding to the "You can't fuck over people who had nothing to do with this woman's decision to drive drunk" comment.
Some people in this thread are trying to make out that what she did(drive drunk) was in no way related to her office(investigating corruption), and they are right, but once she made threats to use her official power in a vindictive manner, she made her DUI arrest about her office.
Abuse of power for the purposes of coercion doesn't become okay because you'd totally for reals not use it for nefarious purposes (this time).
I'm kind of flummoxed by this story, to be honest. It seems like there should've been other ways for Perry to achieve his goal without going for the jugular. How dumb.
Except a certain amount of coercion is considered a normal part of politics. For example, if you don't add this restriction to this the funding in this bill, then I will veto the bill is both a threat, and coercion. The question is whether this particular use of veto power falls into the realm of normal politics or not.
It is not anyone's job to go around threatening rival politicians that, hey, resign from your elected job or I will do [x] to you. Absurd idea.
Richard Nixon, "If you don't resign, we will impeach you and have you removed from office"
There was an impeachable offense. Giving somebody the opportunity to resign and maintain a modicum of dignity instead of utter shame and probably prison is completely different from this situation, where the funding to an entirely unrelated ethics program is what was being hung over someone's head.
How is department you are head of unrelated to funding for said department?
Because cutting the funding for an entire department is not related in any way to the actual head of that department?
You can't fuck over people who had nothing to do with this woman's decision to drive drunk, and you certainly can't do it openly. It's petty and possibly illegal, which is up to a jury to decide.
Ok, lets get one thing cleared up. I know I can't speak for all Texans, but for a lot of us this has nothing to do with the drunk driving.
If my local DA did the same thing, then he came out with an honest apology, saying "Look I know I screwed up, I am sorry." I would probably be inclined to say "Hey, we all make mistakes, don't let it happen again."
The problem is the drunk tank videos paint a picture of a very angry and vindictive woman who is willing make threats against people who are just doing their job. They show a person who shouldn't be left in charge of a lego playset, much less any public office of note. We can argue back and forth about whether those videos paint an accurate picture of the woman, but there a plenty of people who feel the attitudes expressed in those videos warrant her removal from office.
Come to think of it, shouldn't she be indicted for using her public office to coerce? If Perry got drunk before he threatened to veto funding for her department, would that make it ok?
Then she should have been removed from the office in a legal way. Nobody in this thread has defended her actions. Her being a terrible person does not give Perry carte blanche to do whatever is necessary to remove her, including possibly illegal coercion.
I am not a big fan of Perry, so put me in the "If it was illegal, I hope Perry has fun in prison" camp, but I was specifically responding to the "You can't fuck over people who had nothing to do with this woman's decision to drive drunk" comment.
Some people in this thread are trying to make out that what she did(drive drunk) was in no way related to her office(investigating corruption), but once she made threats to use her official power in a vindictive manner, she made her DUI arrest about her office.
Would it have been okay to threaten to defund her department if, say, she was the head of the Texas Education Agency?
Abuse of power for the purposes of coercion doesn't become okay because you'd totally for reals not use it for nefarious purposes (this time).
I'm kind of flummoxed by this story, to be honest. It seems like there should've been other ways for Perry to achieve his goal without going for the jugular. How dumb.
Except a certain amount of coercion is considered a normal part of politics. For example, if you don't add this restriction to this the funding in this bill, then I will veto the bill is both a threat, and coercion. The question is whether this particular use of veto power falls into the realm of normal politics or not.
It is not anyone's job to go around threatening rival politicians that, hey, resign from your elected job or I will do [x] to you. Absurd idea.
Richard Nixon, "If you don't resign, we will impeach you and have you removed from office"
There was an impeachable offense. Giving somebody the opportunity to resign and maintain a modicum of dignity instead of utter shame and probably prison is completely different from this situation, where the funding to an entirely unrelated ethics program is what was being hung over someone's head.
How is department you are head of unrelated to funding for said department?
Because cutting the funding for an entire department is not related in any way to the actual head of that department?
You can't fuck over people who had nothing to do with this woman's decision to drive drunk, and you certainly can't do it openly. It's petty and possibly illegal, which is up to a jury to decide.
Ok, lets get one thing cleared up. I know I can't speak for all Texans, but for a lot of us this has nothing to do with the drunk driving.
If my local DA did the same thing, then he came out with an honest apology, saying "Look I know I screwed up, I am sorry." I would probably be inclined to say "Hey, we all make mistakes, don't let it happen again."
The problem is the drunk tank videos paint a picture of a very angry and vindictive woman who is willing make threats against people who are just doing their job. They show a person who shouldn't be left in charge of a lego playset, much less any public office of note. We can argue back and forth about whether those videos paint an accurate picture of the woman, but there a plenty of people who feel the attitudes expressed in those videos warrant her removal from office.
Come to think of it, shouldn't she be indicted for using her public office to coerce? If Perry got drunk before he threatened to veto funding for her department, would that make it ok?
Then she should have been removed from the office in a legal way. Nobody in this thread has defended her actions. Her being a terrible person does not give Perry carte blanche to do whatever is necessary to remove her, including possibly illegal coercion.
I am not a big fan of Perry, so put me in the "If it was illegal, I hope Perry has fun in prison" camp, but I was specifically responding to the "You can't fuck over people who had nothing to do with this woman's decision to drive drunk" comment.
Some people in this thread are trying to make out that what she did(drive drunk) was in no way related to her office(investigating corruption), but once she made threats to use her official power in a vindictive manner, she made her DUI arrest about her office.
Would it have been okay to threaten to defund her department if, say, she was the head of the Texas Education Agency?
Legal? The answer hasn't changed. If what he did was legal, then that would be legal as well.
Okay with the voters? Probably not, too much collateral damage, different people will draw the line at different places, but I suspect for most, that would be a bridge too far.
Abuse of power for the purposes of coercion doesn't become okay because you'd totally for reals not use it for nefarious purposes (this time).
I'm kind of flummoxed by this story, to be honest. It seems like there should've been other ways for Perry to achieve his goal without going for the jugular. How dumb.
Except a certain amount of coercion is considered a normal part of politics. For example, if you don't add this restriction to this the funding in this bill, then I will veto the bill is both a threat, and coercion. The question is whether this particular use of veto power falls into the realm of normal politics or not.
It is not anyone's job to go around threatening rival politicians that, hey, resign from your elected job or I will do [x] to you. Absurd idea.
Richard Nixon, "If you don't resign, we will impeach you and have you removed from office"
One of the constitutionally mandated powers of Congress. Would you like where blackmailing an elected official is part of the Governors remit?
The line item veto is a constitutionally mandated power of the Governor of Texas. Is it allowed for the governor to say, "[Fund my pet project X] or I will line-item veto funding for [something else]"? It would appear that not only is this case, but it has to be the case. Otherwise, the governor wouldn't be allowed to deal with the congress - he'd have to make up his plans for using his constitutionally-mandated powers in total secret, because the other guys knowing about it would make using it illegal.
The question then becomes where the line is drawn on official actions - and, as stated, I'm pretty sure that resigning your post is an official action. So, if the law is loose enough, then that is perfectly okay, too (from a legal standpoint).
* Or, you know, we could get rid of line item vetoes, but that's never going to happen.
Legal actions can be made illegal by surrounding actions.
"I fire you."
Completely legal!
"Sleep with me or I fire you."
Completely illegal!
When he used his legitimate powers in order to force another elected official to resign, a power he very much does not have directly, is when he stepped over the line.
Would you be okay with Obama telling Boehner that the treasury is no longer sending any checks out to Republican members of congress?
Because, again, there is actually a specific law that says "Sleep with me or I fire you!" is illegal (and undesirable for a host of reasons).
There isn't, to my knowledge, an anti-"Go with me to this hockey game or I fire you!" law, so that would be legal.
No, I wouldn't be okay with Obama doing that, because the President of these United States does not have line-item veto powers, and thank goodness for that. And if he did something like that, I would expect Congress to override his veto in a stunning display of bipartisan action (acting in their own self-interest).
And, furthermore, if he did have a line item veto, I'm not sure "So-and-so, step down from the Appropriations committee or I will line-item veto funding for [your pet project Y]" would be beyond the pale - especially given Congress's ability to override that veto if there is not broad-based political support for his action.
At some point, you need to maintain a working relationship with the legislature, so I see this as largely self-correcting.
But then, I think the real problem here is the line item veto that enables these shenanigans, so ...
And, again, I wouldn't be averse to this being made illegal at the end of the day through enactment of additional laws (if it isn't, in fact, already illegal), but I foresee difficulty in writing a law narrow enough to outlaw something like this while also allowing the normal, day-to-day use of veto threats.
I feel like I should also point out that he didn't actually make her resign. She refused, he followed through on his veto of state funds appropriation, and someone else picked up the tab.
Abuse of power for the purposes of coercion doesn't become okay because you'd totally for reals not use it for nefarious purposes (this time).
I'm kind of flummoxed by this story, to be honest. It seems like there should've been other ways for Perry to achieve his goal without going for the jugular. How dumb.
Except a certain amount of coercion is considered a normal part of politics. For example, if you don't add this restriction to this the funding in this bill, then I will veto the bill is both a threat, and coercion. The question is whether this particular use of veto power falls into the realm of normal politics or not.
It is not anyone's job to go around threatening rival politicians that, hey, resign from your elected job or I will do [x] to you. Absurd idea.
Richard Nixon, "If you don't resign, we will impeach you and have you removed from office"
There was an impeachable offense. Giving somebody the opportunity to resign and maintain a modicum of dignity instead of utter shame and probably prison is completely different from this situation, where the funding to an entirely unrelated ethics program is what was being hung over someone's head.
How is department you are head of unrelated to funding for said department?
Because cutting the funding for an entire department is not related in any way to the actual head of that department?
You can't fuck over people who had nothing to do with this woman's decision to drive drunk, and you certainly can't do it openly. It's petty and possibly illegal, which is up to a jury to decide.
Ok, lets get one thing cleared up. I know I can't speak for all Texans, but for a lot of us this has nothing to do with the drunk driving.
If my local DA did the same thing, then he came out with an honest apology, saying "Look I know I screwed up, I am sorry." I would probably be inclined to say "Hey, we all make mistakes, don't let it happen again."
The problem is the drunk tank videos paint a picture of a very angry and vindictive woman who is willing make threats against people who are just doing their job. They show a person who shouldn't be left in charge of a lego playset, much less any public office of note. We can argue back and forth about whether those videos paint an accurate picture of the woman, but there a plenty of people who feel the attitudes expressed in those videos warrant her removal from office.
Come to think of it, shouldn't she be indicted for using her public office to coerce? If Perry got drunk before he threatened to veto funding for her department, would that make it ok?
Yes, she probably should be investigated / indicted for using her public office to coerce the officers or whatever. I mean, usually a person is just prosecuted for the DUI and not the stupid comments they made to the cops while they are drunk, but sure. Whatever.
Still doesn't excuse Perry breaking the law. You're not going to find any situation regarding HER actions that excuse Perry's actions.
If she ate a baby live on TV, it still doesn't excuse Perry breaking the law to remove her from office.
Abuse of power for the purposes of coercion doesn't become okay because you'd totally for reals not use it for nefarious purposes (this time).
I'm kind of flummoxed by this story, to be honest. It seems like there should've been other ways for Perry to achieve his goal without going for the jugular. How dumb.
Except a certain amount of coercion is considered a normal part of politics. For example, if you don't add this restriction to this the funding in this bill, then I will veto the bill is both a threat, and coercion. The question is whether this particular use of veto power falls into the realm of normal politics or not.
It is not anyone's job to go around threatening rival politicians that, hey, resign from your elected job or I will do [x] to you. Absurd idea.
Richard Nixon, "If you don't resign, we will impeach you and have you removed from office"
There was an impeachable offense. Giving somebody the opportunity to resign and maintain a modicum of dignity instead of utter shame and probably prison is completely different from this situation, where the funding to an entirely unrelated ethics program is what was being hung over someone's head.
How is department you are head of unrelated to funding for said department?
Because cutting the funding for an entire department is not related in any way to the actual head of that department?
You can't fuck over people who had nothing to do with this woman's decision to drive drunk, and you certainly can't do it openly. It's petty and possibly illegal, which is up to a jury to decide.
Ok, lets get one thing cleared up. I know I can't speak for all Texans, but for a lot of us this has nothing to do with the drunk driving.
If my local DA did the same thing, then he came out with an honest apology, saying "Look I know I screwed up, I am sorry." I would probably be inclined to say "Hey, we all make mistakes, don't let it happen again."
The problem is the drunk tank videos paint a picture of a very angry and vindictive woman who is willing make threats against people who are just doing their job. They show a person who shouldn't be left in charge of a lego playset, much less any public office of note. We can argue back and forth about whether those videos paint an accurate picture of the woman, but there a plenty of people who feel the attitudes expressed in those videos warrant her removal from office.
Come to think of it, shouldn't she be indicted for using her public office to coerce? If Perry got drunk before he threatened to veto funding for her department, would that make it ok?
Then she should have been removed from the office in a legal way. Nobody in this thread has defended her actions. Her being a terrible person does not give Perry carte blanche to do whatever is necessary to remove her, including possibly illegal coercion.
I am not a big fan of Perry, so put me in the "If it was illegal, I hope Perry has fun in prison" camp, but I was specifically responding to the "You can't fuck over people who had nothing to do with this woman's decision to drive drunk" comment.
Some people in this thread are trying to make out that what she did(drive drunk) was in no way related to her office(investigating corruption), and they are right, but once she made threats to use her official power in a vindictive manner, she made her DUI arrest about her office.
You are conflating two very different things. Nobody in the thread has ever said they had a problem with Perry demanding her resignation. Whether or not she should have resigned or deserved to be removed from office through the proper means is completely irrelevant. The issue at hand is whether or not it was legal for the Governor to use his otherwise constitutionally legal power of the line item veto as a means of punishment/coercion/persuasion to attempt to force an action he otherwise isn't legally capable of.
It basically comes down to:
1) It is legal for Perry to request someone's resignation who's office isn't under his authority.
2) It is legal for Perry to use his power of the line item veto to strike funding for the Public Integrity Unit.
3) It is not legal for Perry to forcibly remove her from office.
4) It is unclear whether it is legal to use #2 as a cudgel to attempt to circumvent #3.
I feel like I should also point out that he didn't actually make her resign. She refused, he followed through on his veto of state funds appropriation, and someone else picked up the tab.
Irrelevant. If I try to blackmail you, it's illegal even if you refuse to go along with it. The attempt itself is what is against the law.
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
Abuse of power for the purposes of coercion doesn't become okay because you'd totally for reals not use it for nefarious purposes (this time).
I'm kind of flummoxed by this story, to be honest. It seems like there should've been other ways for Perry to achieve his goal without going for the jugular. How dumb.
Except a certain amount of coercion is considered a normal part of politics. For example, if you don't add this restriction to this the funding in this bill, then I will veto the bill is both a threat, and coercion. The question is whether this particular use of veto power falls into the realm of normal politics or not.
It is not anyone's job to go around threatening rival politicians that, hey, resign from your elected job or I will do [x] to you. Absurd idea.
Richard Nixon, "If you don't resign, we will impeach you and have you removed from office"
There was an impeachable offense. Giving somebody the opportunity to resign and maintain a modicum of dignity instead of utter shame and probably prison is completely different from this situation, where the funding to an entirely unrelated ethics program is what was being hung over someone's head.
How is department you are head of unrelated to funding for said department?
Because cutting the funding for an entire department is not related in any way to the actual head of that department?
You can't fuck over people who had nothing to do with this woman's decision to drive drunk, and you certainly can't do it openly. It's petty and possibly illegal, which is up to a jury to decide.
Ok, lets get one thing cleared up. I know I can't speak for all Texans, but for a lot of us this has nothing to do with the drunk driving.
If my local DA did the same thing, then he came out with an honest apology, saying "Look I know I screwed up, I am sorry." I would probably be inclined to say "Hey, we all make mistakes, don't let it happen again."
The problem is the drunk tank videos paint a picture of a very angry and vindictive woman who is willing make threats against people who are just doing their job. They show a person who shouldn't be left in charge of a lego playset, much less any public office of note. We can argue back and forth about whether those videos paint an accurate picture of the woman, but there a plenty of people who feel the attitudes expressed in those videos warrant her removal from office.
Come to think of it, shouldn't she be indicted for using her public office to coerce? If Perry got drunk before he threatened to veto funding for her department, would that make it ok?
Then she should have been removed from the office in a legal way. Nobody in this thread has defended her actions. Her being a terrible person does not give Perry carte blanche to do whatever is necessary to remove her, including possibly illegal coercion.
I am not a big fan of Perry, so put me in the "If it was illegal, I hope Perry has fun in prison" camp, but I was specifically responding to the "You can't fuck over people who had nothing to do with this woman's decision to drive drunk" comment.
Some people in this thread are trying to make out that what she did(drive drunk) was in no way related to her office(investigating corruption), and they are right, but once she made threats to use her official power in a vindictive manner, she made her DUI arrest about her office.
You are conflating two very different things. Nobody in the thread has ever said they had a problem with Perry demanding her resignation. Whether or not she should have resigned or deserved to be removed from office through the proper means is completely irrelevant. The issue at hand is whether or not it was legal for the Governor to use his otherwise constitutionally legal power of the line item veto as a means of punishment/coercion/persuasion to attempt to force an action he otherwise isn't legally capable of.
It basically comes down to:
1) It is legal for Perry to request someone's resignation who's office isn't under his authority.
2) It is legal for Perry to use his power of the line item veto to strike funding for the Public Integrity Unit.
3) It is not legal for Perry to forcibly remove her from office.
4) It is unclear whether it is legal to use #2 as a cudgel to attempt to circumvent #3.
I am not conflating, there are multiple issues in play.
1. There are people trying to make the argument that while what she did was wrong, it is not connected to her duties as leader of the PIU, and thus does not warrant her the rest of her department getting dragged into it. I am specifically addressing that argument by pointing out that she dragged her office into it when she made threats to use that department against against the LEOs that arrested her.
2. I have never advocated using illegal means to remove her from office. "This woman should be removed from power" is not the same as "This woman should be removed by any means necessary." Other people are adding the "by any means necessary", not me. I responded to that.
3. I am pretty open to the legality arguments. I don't think what he did was illegal based on the sheer number of pundits saying this indictment is not legit which I admit is an appeal to authority, but then fallacy fallacy. If you scroll back, you will see that I completely agree that we are dealing with a grey area as to what defines "normal political coercion". If you notice I consistantly say IF it was illegal. I recognize that the legality is not a clearly settled issue.
I feel like I should also point out that he didn't actually make her resign. She refused, he followed through on his veto of state funds appropriation, and someone else picked up the tab.
Irrelevant. If I try to blackmail you, it's illegal even if you refuse to go along with it. The attempt itself is what is against the law.
Only if it is, in fact, blackmail. If it isn't blackmail (the use of which is illegal) and is instead legally protected exercise of your first amendment rights, then it is not illegal to do what he did.
I feel like I should also point out that he didn't actually make her resign. She refused, he followed through on his veto of state funds appropriation, and someone else picked up the tab.
Irrelevant. If I try to blackmail you, it's illegal even if you refuse to go along with it. The attempt itself is what is against the law.
The attempt is specifically exempted in the law. We have been over this a bunch of times. The last two pages are 100% rehashing the same conversation as the ones before it, including this exact argument.
Agents of government bodies are allowed to try and coerce each other, with their government powers, into doing official things as agents of the government.
"Resign or I'll cut your department's funding" is no more blackmail than "support my idea x or I'll veto your bill y" ,or even "tell the truth to the committee or you're fired". You might not like it morally, but legally it looks almost certain to break Perry's way.
We seriously have talked about this over and over - if you want to make this argument from the "it's illegal" side you've got to do the heavy lifting here and tackle reason why in the statutes.
Abuse of power for the purposes of coercion doesn't become okay because you'd totally for reals not use it for nefarious purposes (this time).
I'm kind of flummoxed by this story, to be honest. It seems like there should've been other ways for Perry to achieve his goal without going for the jugular. How dumb.
Except a certain amount of coercion is considered a normal part of politics. For example, if you don't add this restriction to this the funding in this bill, then I will veto the bill is both a threat, and coercion. The question is whether this particular use of veto power falls into the realm of normal politics or not.
It is not anyone's job to go around threatening rival politicians that, hey, resign from your elected job or I will do [x] to you. Absurd idea.
Richard Nixon, "If you don't resign, we will impeach you and have you removed from office"
There was an impeachable offense. Giving somebody the opportunity to resign and maintain a modicum of dignity instead of utter shame and probably prison is completely different from this situation, where the funding to an entirely unrelated ethics program is what was being hung over someone's head.
How is department you are head of unrelated to funding for said department?
Because cutting the funding for an entire department is not related in any way to the actual head of that department?
You can't fuck over people who had nothing to do with this woman's decision to drive drunk, and you certainly can't do it openly. It's petty and possibly illegal, which is up to a jury to decide.
Ok, lets get one thing cleared up. I know I can't speak for all Texans, but for a lot of us this has nothing to do with the drunk driving.
If my local DA did the same thing, then he came out with an honest apology, saying "Look I know I screwed up, I am sorry." I would probably be inclined to say "Hey, we all make mistakes, don't let it happen again."
The problem is the drunk tank videos paint a picture of a very angry and vindictive woman who is willing make threats against people who are just doing their job. They show a person who shouldn't be left in charge of a lego playset, much less any public office of note. We can argue back and forth about whether those videos paint an accurate picture of the woman, but there a plenty of people who feel the attitudes expressed in those videos warrant her removal from office.
Come to think of it, shouldn't she be indicted for using her public office to coerce? If Perry got drunk before he threatened to veto funding for her department, would that make it ok?
Then she should have been removed from the office in a legal way. Nobody in this thread has defended her actions. Her being a terrible person does not give Perry carte blanche to do whatever is necessary to remove her, including possibly illegal coercion.
I am not a big fan of Perry, so put me in the "If it was illegal, I hope Perry has fun in prison" camp, but I was specifically responding to the "You can't fuck over people who had nothing to do with this woman's decision to drive drunk" comment.
Some people in this thread are trying to make out that what she did(drive drunk) was in no way related to her office(investigating corruption), and they are right, but once she made threats to use her official power in a vindictive manner, she made her DUI arrest about her office.
You are conflating two very different things. Nobody in the thread has ever said they had a problem with Perry demanding her resignation. Whether or not she should have resigned or deserved to be removed from office through the proper means is completely irrelevant. The issue at hand is whether or not it was legal for the Governor to use his otherwise constitutionally legal power of the line item veto as a means of punishment/coercion/persuasion to attempt to force an action he otherwise isn't legally capable of.
It basically comes down to:
1) It is legal for Perry to request someone's resignation who's office isn't under his authority.
2) It is legal for Perry to use his power of the line item veto to strike funding for the Public Integrity Unit.
3) It is not legal for Perry to forcibly remove her from office.
4) It is unclear whether it is legal to use #2 as a cudgel to attempt to circumvent #3.
You get the argument slightly wrong... "The issue at hand is whether or not it was legal for the Governor to use his otherwise constitutionally legal power of the line item veto as a means of punishment/coercion/persuasion to attempt to force an action she is capable of."
The governor doesn't have to be capable of taking an action in order to threaten to veto a bill if it's not taken. The target of the threat has to be able to take the action officially in her capacity as an agent of the government. Resignation clearly is an official action, and she has the power to do it.
The grand jury is under orders not to talk about specifics but has assured Texans that once the full scope of the prosecution's case comes to light, Perry's spinning won't matter so much.
Maybe that's true. Perhaps we should wait until we have some details before saying definitively one way or the other that Perry was 100% in the clear.
+2
Options
CrayonSleeps in the wrong bed.TejasRegistered Userregular
Abuse of power for the purposes of coercion doesn't become okay because you'd totally for reals not use it for nefarious purposes (this time).
I'm kind of flummoxed by this story, to be honest. It seems like there should've been other ways for Perry to achieve his goal without going for the jugular. How dumb.
Except a certain amount of coercion is considered a normal part of politics. For example, if you don't add this restriction to this the funding in this bill, then I will veto the bill is both a threat, and coercion. The question is whether this particular use of veto power falls into the realm of normal politics or not.
It is not anyone's job to go around threatening rival politicians that, hey, resign from your elected job or I will do [x] to you. Absurd idea.
Richard Nixon, "If you don't resign, we will impeach you and have you removed from office"
There was an impeachable offense. Giving somebody the opportunity to resign and maintain a modicum of dignity instead of utter shame and probably prison is completely different from this situation, where the funding to an entirely unrelated ethics program is what was being hung over someone's head.
How is department you are head of unrelated to funding for said department?
Because cutting the funding for an entire department is not related in any way to the actual head of that department?
You can't fuck over people who had nothing to do with this woman's decision to drive drunk, and you certainly can't do it openly. It's petty and possibly illegal, which is up to a jury to decide.
Ok, lets get one thing cleared up. I know I can't speak for all Texans, but for a lot of us this has nothing to do with the drunk driving.
If my local DA did the same thing, then he came out with an honest apology, saying "Look I know I screwed up, I am sorry." I would probably be inclined to say "Hey, we all make mistakes, don't let it happen again."
The problem is the drunk tank videos paint a picture of a very angry and vindictive woman who is willing make threats against people who are just doing their job. They show a person who shouldn't be left in charge of a lego playset, much less any public office of note. We can argue back and forth about whether those videos paint an accurate picture of the woman, but there a plenty of people who feel the attitudes expressed in those videos warrant her removal from office.
Come to think of it, shouldn't she be indicted for using her public office to coerce? If Perry got drunk before he threatened to veto funding for her department, would that make it ok?
Then she should have been removed from the office in a legal way. Nobody in this thread has defended her actions. Her being a terrible person does not give Perry carte blanche to do whatever is necessary to remove her, including possibly illegal coercion.
I am not a big fan of Perry, so put me in the "If it was illegal, I hope Perry has fun in prison" camp, but I was specifically responding to the "You can't fuck over people who had nothing to do with this woman's decision to drive drunk" comment.
Some people in this thread are trying to make out that what she did(drive drunk) was in no way related to her office(investigating corruption), and they are right, but once she made threats to use her official power in a vindictive manner, she made her DUI arrest about her office.
You are conflating two very different things. Nobody in the thread has ever said they had a problem with Perry demanding her resignation. Whether or not she should have resigned or deserved to be removed from office through the proper means is completely irrelevant. The issue at hand is whether or not it was legal for the Governor to use his otherwise constitutionally legal power of the line item veto as a means of punishment/coercion/persuasion to attempt to force an action he otherwise isn't legally capable of.
It basically comes down to:
1) It is legal for Perry to request someone's resignation who's office isn't under his authority.
2) It is legal for Perry to use his power of the line item veto to strike funding for the Public Integrity Unit.
3) It is not legal for Perry to forcibly remove her from office.
4) It is unclear whether it is legal to use #2 as a cudgel to attempt to circumvent #3.
You get the argument slightly wrong... "The issue at hand is whether or not it was legal for the Governor to use his otherwise constitutionally legal power of the line item veto as a means of punishment/coercion/persuasion to attempt to force an action she is capable of."
The governor doesn't have to be capable of taking an action in order to threaten to veto a bill if it's not taken. The target of the threat has to be able to take the action officially in her capacity as an agent of the government. Resignation clearly is an official action, and she has the power to do it.
It's been pointed out that this interpretation of the law was decided in a different jurisdiction and is non-binding to the jurisdiction in question. So it's not quite as open-and-shut as you're making it out to be. But I have a feeling you will be proven correct and I think he'll probably rightly get off, but that's a fucking idiotic law. If he was supposed to have the power to forcibly nudge her to resign, he'd have been expressly given that power. It just feels like an invitation of over-step his authority.
I feel like I should also point out that he didn't actually make her resign. She refused, he followed through on his veto of state funds appropriation, and someone else picked up the tab.
Irrelevant. If I try to blackmail you, it's illegal even if you refuse to go along with it. The attempt itself is what is against the law.
The attempt is specifically exempted in the law. We have been over this a bunch of times. The last two pages are 100% rehashing the same conversation as the ones before it, including this exact argument.
Agents of government bodies are allowed to try and coerce each other, with their government powers, into doing official things as agents of the government.
"Resign or I'll cut your department's funding" is no more blackmail than "support my idea x or I'll veto your bill y" ,or even "tell the truth to the committee or you're fired". You might not like it morally, but legally it looks almost certain to break Perry's way.
We seriously have talked about this over and over - if you want to make this argument from the "it's illegal" side you've got to do the heavy lifting here and tackle reason why in the statutes.
Your argument isn't nearly as bulletproof as you are saying for one simple reason.
Perry was indicted.
We don't have the evidence that was presented to the Grand Jury to speculate on due to the gag order. But, with the members of the Grand Jury saying that there is a lot more than 'nothing' there, I'm not going to make any absolute statements either way about Perry's guilt. However, I'm not aware of anywhere in Texas's statutes where the governor is specifically allowed to use his official powers to coerce the resignation of his political opponents in this manner.
Can you cite this specific law?
But I do agree that - in the end - things are probably going to break Perry's way. Unless there is a shitload of clear cut evidence well beyond even what we're assuming here, we're not going to end up with another Blagojevich.
Abuse of power for the purposes of coercion doesn't become okay because you'd totally for reals not use it for nefarious purposes (this time).
I'm kind of flummoxed by this story, to be honest. It seems like there should've been other ways for Perry to achieve his goal without going for the jugular. How dumb.
Except a certain amount of coercion is considered a normal part of politics. For example, if you don't add this restriction to this the funding in this bill, then I will veto the bill is both a threat, and coercion. The question is whether this particular use of veto power falls into the realm of normal politics or not.
It is not anyone's job to go around threatening rival politicians that, hey, resign from your elected job or I will do [x] to you. Absurd idea.
Richard Nixon, "If you don't resign, we will impeach you and have you removed from office"
There was an impeachable offense. Giving somebody the opportunity to resign and maintain a modicum of dignity instead of utter shame and probably prison is completely different from this situation, where the funding to an entirely unrelated ethics program is what was being hung over someone's head.
How is department you are head of unrelated to funding for said department?
Because cutting the funding for an entire department is not related in any way to the actual head of that department?
You can't fuck over people who had nothing to do with this woman's decision to drive drunk, and you certainly can't do it openly. It's petty and possibly illegal, which is up to a jury to decide.
Ok, lets get one thing cleared up. I know I can't speak for all Texans, but for a lot of us this has nothing to do with the drunk driving.
If my local DA did the same thing, then he came out with an honest apology, saying "Look I know I screwed up, I am sorry." I would probably be inclined to say "Hey, we all make mistakes, don't let it happen again."
The problem is the drunk tank videos paint a picture of a very angry and vindictive woman who is willing make threats against people who are just doing their job. They show a person who shouldn't be left in charge of a lego playset, much less any public office of note. We can argue back and forth about whether those videos paint an accurate picture of the woman, but there a plenty of people who feel the attitudes expressed in those videos warrant her removal from office.
Come to think of it, shouldn't she be indicted for using her public office to coerce? If Perry got drunk before he threatened to veto funding for her department, would that make it ok?
You're right, you can't speak for all Texans. This has nothing to do with her getting drunk, it has everything to do with how Perry decided to wield his power like a truncheon illegally.
All of the attempts to compare this to another situation are ridiculous.
It's not like any of that.
Know what it is like?
It's like the governor of the state decided to threaten an entire department of the state government if the elected official he could not fire didn't resign.
Abuse of power for the purposes of coercion doesn't become okay because you'd totally for reals not use it for nefarious purposes (this time).
I'm kind of flummoxed by this story, to be honest. It seems like there should've been other ways for Perry to achieve his goal without going for the jugular. How dumb.
Except a certain amount of coercion is considered a normal part of politics. For example, if you don't add this restriction to this the funding in this bill, then I will veto the bill is both a threat, and coercion. The question is whether this particular use of veto power falls into the realm of normal politics or not.
It is not anyone's job to go around threatening rival politicians that, hey, resign from your elected job or I will do [x] to you. Absurd idea.
Richard Nixon, "If you don't resign, we will impeach you and have you removed from office"
There was an impeachable offense. Giving somebody the opportunity to resign and maintain a modicum of dignity instead of utter shame and probably prison is completely different from this situation, where the funding to an entirely unrelated ethics program is what was being hung over someone's head.
How is department you are head of unrelated to funding for said department?
Because cutting the funding for an entire department is not related in any way to the actual head of that department?
You can't fuck over people who had nothing to do with this woman's decision to drive drunk, and you certainly can't do it openly. It's petty and possibly illegal, which is up to a jury to decide.
Ok, lets get one thing cleared up. I know I can't speak for all Texans, but for a lot of us this has nothing to do with the drunk driving.
If my local DA did the same thing, then he came out with an honest apology, saying "Look I know I screwed up, I am sorry." I would probably be inclined to say "Hey, we all make mistakes, don't let it happen again."
The problem is the drunk tank videos paint a picture of a very angry and vindictive woman who is willing make threats against people who are just doing their job. They show a person who shouldn't be left in charge of a lego playset, much less any public office of note. We can argue back and forth about whether those videos paint an accurate picture of the woman, but there a plenty of people who feel the attitudes expressed in those videos warrant her removal from office.
Come to think of it, shouldn't she be indicted for using her public office to coerce? If Perry got drunk before he threatened to veto funding for her department, would that make it ok?
You're right, you can't speak for all Texans. This has nothing to do with her getting drunk, it has everything to do with how Perry decided to wield his power like a truncheon illegally.
All of the attempts to compare this to another situation are ridiculous.
It's not like any of that.
Know what it is like? It's like the governor of the state decided to threaten an entire department of the state government if the elected official he could not fire didn't resign.
That's exactly right. The problem is that it's not clear cut whether or not that's illegal. It's shady as shit, and ethically dubious, but the legality of doing that is not clear from either side of the argument.
I feel like I should also point out that he didn't actually make her resign. She refused, he followed through on his veto of state funds appropriation, and someone else picked up the tab.
Irrelevant. If I try to blackmail you, it's illegal even if you refuse to go along with it. The attempt itself is what is against the law.
The attempt is specifically exempted in the law. We have been over this a bunch of times. The last two pages are 100% rehashing the same conversation as the ones before it, including this exact argument.
Agents of government bodies are allowed to try and coerce each other, with their government powers, into doing official things as agents of the government.
"Resign or I'll cut your department's funding" is no more blackmail than "support my idea x or I'll veto your bill y" ,or even "tell the truth to the committee or you're fired". You might not like it morally, but legally it looks almost certain to break Perry's way.
We seriously have talked about this over and over - if you want to make this argument from the "it's illegal" side you've got to do the heavy lifting here and tackle reason why in the statutes.
Your argument isn't nearly as bulletproof as you are saying for one simple reason.
Perry was indicted.
We don't have the evidence that was presented to the Grand Jury to speculate on due to the gag order. But, with the members of the Grand Jury saying that there is a lot more than 'nothing' there, I'm not going to make any absolute statements either way about Perry's guilt. However, I'm not aware of anywhere in Texas's statutes where the governor is specifically allowed to use his official powers to coerce the resignation of his political opponents in this manner.
Abuse of power for the purposes of coercion doesn't become okay because you'd totally for reals not use it for nefarious purposes (this time).
I'm kind of flummoxed by this story, to be honest. It seems like there should've been other ways for Perry to achieve his goal without going for the jugular. How dumb.
Except a certain amount of coercion is considered a normal part of politics. For example, if you don't add this restriction to this the funding in this bill, then I will veto the bill is both a threat, and coercion. The question is whether this particular use of veto power falls into the realm of normal politics or not.
It is not anyone's job to go around threatening rival politicians that, hey, resign from your elected job or I will do [x] to you. Absurd idea.
Richard Nixon, "If you don't resign, we will impeach you and have you removed from office"
There was an impeachable offense. Giving somebody the opportunity to resign and maintain a modicum of dignity instead of utter shame and probably prison is completely different from this situation, where the funding to an entirely unrelated ethics program is what was being hung over someone's head.
How is department you are head of unrelated to funding for said department?
Because cutting the funding for an entire department is not related in any way to the actual head of that department?
You can't fuck over people who had nothing to do with this woman's decision to drive drunk, and you certainly can't do it openly. It's petty and possibly illegal, which is up to a jury to decide.
Ok, lets get one thing cleared up. I know I can't speak for all Texans, but for a lot of us this has nothing to do with the drunk driving.
If my local DA did the same thing, then he came out with an honest apology, saying "Look I know I screwed up, I am sorry." I would probably be inclined to say "Hey, we all make mistakes, don't let it happen again."
The problem is the drunk tank videos paint a picture of a very angry and vindictive woman who is willing make threats against people who are just doing their job. They show a person who shouldn't be left in charge of a lego playset, much less any public office of note. We can argue back and forth about whether those videos paint an accurate picture of the woman, but there a plenty of people who feel the attitudes expressed in those videos warrant her removal from office.
Come to think of it, shouldn't she be indicted for using her public office to coerce? If Perry got drunk before he threatened to veto funding for her department, would that make it ok?
Then she should have been removed from the office in a legal way. Nobody in this thread has defended her actions. Her being a terrible person does not give Perry carte blanche to do whatever is necessary to remove her, including possibly illegal coercion.
I am not a big fan of Perry, so put me in the "If it was illegal, I hope Perry has fun in prison" camp, but I was specifically responding to the "You can't fuck over people who had nothing to do with this woman's decision to drive drunk" comment.
Some people in this thread are trying to make out that what she did(drive drunk) was in no way related to her office(investigating corruption), and they are right, but once she made threats to use her official power in a vindictive manner, she made her DUI arrest about her office.
You are conflating two very different things. Nobody in the thread has ever said they had a problem with Perry demanding her resignation. Whether or not she should have resigned or deserved to be removed from office through the proper means is completely irrelevant. The issue at hand is whether or not it was legal for the Governor to use his otherwise constitutionally legal power of the line item veto as a means of punishment/coercion/persuasion to attempt to force an action he otherwise isn't legally capable of.
It basically comes down to:
1) It is legal for Perry to request someone's resignation who's office isn't under his authority.
2) It is legal for Perry to use his power of the line item veto to strike funding for the Public Integrity Unit.
3) It is not legal for Perry to forcibly remove her from office.
4) It is unclear whether it is legal to use #2 as a cudgel to attempt to circumvent #3.
You get the argument slightly wrong... "The issue at hand is whether or not it was legal for the Governor to use his otherwise constitutionally legal power of the line item veto as a means of punishment/coercion/persuasion to attempt to force an action she is capable of."
The governor doesn't have to be capable of taking an action in order to threaten to veto a bill if it's not taken. The target of the threat has to be able to take the action officially in her capacity as an agent of the government. Resignation clearly is an official action, and she has the power to do it.
It's been pointed out that this interpretation of the law was decided in a different jurisdiction and is non-binding to the jurisdiction in question. So it's not quite as open-and-shut as you're making it out to be. But I have a feeling you will be proven correct and I think he'll probably rightly get off, but that's a fucking idiotic law. If he was supposed to have the power to forcibly nudge her to resign, he'd have been expressly given that power. It just feels like an invitation of over-step his authority.
January 2013: Lehmberg tells the American-Statesman that the 11 members of the CPRIT board – all of whom were appointed by Perry – “are not under suspicion in the investigation.” That means the investigation is focusing only on CPRIT staff members, none of whom were appointed or hired by Perry.
In the timeline, this happens before her drunk driving arrest. That seems to blow the conspiracy accusation completely out of the water.
Unless you want to argue that she was drunk when she gave the interview, which, to be fair, she very well might have been. According to the purchase history released to the public, she was drinking more than a bottle of vodka a day for months.
We don't have the evidence that was presented to the Grand Jury to speculate on due to the gag order. But, with the members of the Grand Jury saying that there is a lot more than 'nothing' there, I'm not going to make any absolute statements either way about Perry's guilt. However, I'm not aware of anywhere in Texas's statutes where the governor is specifically allowed to use his official powers to coerce the resignation of his political opponents in this manner.
Can you cite this specific law?
If the prevailing interpretation of the law is correct (a point not necessarily conceded), it seems that as long as both actions are legal in a vacuum, than it's legal. Perry's use of a line item veto to cut the funding for the PIU is his legal right. It is Lehmberg's legal right to resign. So that makes Perry's coercion legal. It's a special exemption written for political office holders. The action (veto) is legal so the only way for it's use to be illegal is by using the threat of it to attempt to force someone to do something illegal. It is treated no differently that an Perry threatening "You pass funding for my pet project, or I'll veto funding for your's."
So through this interpretation of the statute, it would be legal for Perry to use a threat of a line item veto to defund the PIU in order to have any investigation he didn't like dropped? I mean it's legal to use the line item veto, it's legal to drop an investigation. This strikes me as problematic if true.
So through this interpretation of the statute, it would be legal for Perry to use a threat of a line item veto to defund the PIU in order to have any investigation he didn't like dropped? I mean it's legal to use the line item veto, it's legal to drop an investigation. This strikes me as problematic if true.
Unless there's a law somewhere specifically stating that it is illegal for the Governor to interfere with a PIU investigation (which there very well may be), yes. It'd be legal to do so. The reason this doesn't happen more often is because it'd be monumentally stupid to do so. Can in imagine the political/public blow-back if he came out and said that he was going to cut their funding unless they stop investigating him? Which is still incredibly problematic.
Abuse of power for the purposes of coercion doesn't become okay because you'd totally for reals not use it for nefarious purposes (this time).
I'm kind of flummoxed by this story, to be honest. It seems like there should've been other ways for Perry to achieve his goal without going for the jugular. How dumb.
Except a certain amount of coercion is considered a normal part of politics. For example, if you don't add this restriction to this the funding in this bill, then I will veto the bill is both a threat, and coercion. The question is whether this particular use of veto power falls into the realm of normal politics or not.
It is not anyone's job to go around threatening rival politicians that, hey, resign from your elected job or I will do [x] to you. Absurd idea.
Richard Nixon, "If you don't resign, we will impeach you and have you removed from office"
There was an impeachable offense. Giving somebody the opportunity to resign and maintain a modicum of dignity instead of utter shame and probably prison is completely different from this situation, where the funding to an entirely unrelated ethics program is what was being hung over someone's head.
How is department you are head of unrelated to funding for said department?
Because cutting the funding for an entire department is not related in any way to the actual head of that department?
You can't fuck over people who had nothing to do with this woman's decision to drive drunk, and you certainly can't do it openly. It's petty and possibly illegal, which is up to a jury to decide.
Ok, lets get one thing cleared up. I know I can't speak for all Texans, but for a lot of us this has nothing to do with the drunk driving.
If my local DA did the same thing, then he came out with an honest apology, saying "Look I know I screwed up, I am sorry." I would probably be inclined to say "Hey, we all make mistakes, don't let it happen again."
The problem is the drunk tank videos paint a picture of a very angry and vindictive woman who is willing make threats against people who are just doing their job. They show a person who shouldn't be left in charge of a lego playset, much less any public office of note. We can argue back and forth about whether those videos paint an accurate picture of the woman, but there a plenty of people who feel the attitudes expressed in those videos warrant her removal from office.
Come to think of it, shouldn't she be indicted for using her public office to coerce? If Perry got drunk before he threatened to veto funding for her department, would that make it ok?
You're right, you can't speak for all Texans. This has nothing to do with her getting drunk, it has everything to do with how Perry decided to wield his power like a truncheon illegally.
All of the attempts to compare this to another situation are ridiculous.
It's not like any of that.
Know what it is like?
It's like the governor of the state decided to threaten an entire department of the state government if the elected official he could not fire didn't resign.
Just so we are clear you are agreeing with me that this isn't about the drunk driving?
I like how you confirm how I cannot speak for all Texans, which is something I clearly admitted, but then proceed to claim "it has everything to do with Perry decided to wield his power like a truncheon". Who exactly are you speaking for?
So through this interpretation of the statute, it would be legal for Perry to use a threat of a line item veto to defund the PIU in order to have any investigation he didn't like dropped? I mean it's legal to use the line item veto, it's legal to drop an investigation. This strikes me as problematic if true.
It does seem problematic in theory, but also true and also not problematic in practice. We have a good example of this already, when Perry did not issue any threats of any kind while the PIU was trying to destroy Republican House Majority Leader Tom Delay.
But again, the interpretation where what he did is legal is not necessarily how it will be interpreted in this case. This is a different jurisdiction than the one where this was previously ruled. That's the only part in question right now. Will the previous interpretation be used or thrown out? The former is more likely but the latter is not totally out of the question.
And again, we don't have access to the evidence the grand jury has, so maybe we should all stop farting towards the south when there's a north wind blowing.
And again, we don't have access to the evidence the grand jury has, so maybe we should all stop farting towards the south when there's a north wind blowing.
... or assuming you know what the outcome of the trial is before it's happened?
And again, we don't have access to the evidence the grand jury has, so maybe we should all stop farting towards the south when there's a north wind blowing.
... or assuming you know what the outcome of the trial is before it's happened?
Posts
There is a law, specifically, which states that you cannot use race as a determining factor when deciding whether or not to sell your house to someone.
There may or may not be a law against Perry's threats to exercise his line item veto on the funding for an agency contingent on someone's resignation. There may even be a law which allows it (though it might not have meant this, specifically, when it was written).
If it turns out that this is, in fact, legal, then it is hard to argue that this is actually abuse of his powers; it is, at worst, unusual usage of his power (and the legislature enacting a law to prevent it in the future would not surprise or sadden me overmuch).* If it was illegal, then, sure - it's an abuse of power.
The line item veto is a constitutionally mandated power of the Governor of Texas. Is it allowed for the governor to say, "[Fund my pet project X] or I will line-item veto funding for [something else]"? It would appear that not only is this case, but it has to be the case. Otherwise, the governor wouldn't be allowed to deal with the congress - he'd have to make up his plans for using his constitutionally-mandated powers in total secret, because the other guys knowing about it would make using it illegal.
The question then becomes where the line is drawn on official actions - and, as stated, I'm pretty sure that resigning your post is an official action. So, if the law is loose enough, then that is perfectly okay, too (from a legal standpoint).
* Or, you know, we could get rid of line item vetoes, but that's never going to happen.
Steam: Elvenshae // PSN: Elvenshae // WotC: Elvenshae
Wilds of Aladrion: [https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/comment/43159014/#Comment_43159014]Ellandryn[/url]
There's a difference between "resign or we'll use our explicit power to impeach you" and "resign or we'll strip your department of funding."
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
Then she should have been removed from the office in a legal way. Nobody in this thread has defended her actions. Her being a terrible person does not give Perry carte blanche to do whatever is necessary to remove her, including possibly illegal coercion.
Legal actions can be made illegal by surrounding actions.
"I fire you."
Completely legal!
"Sleep with me or I fire you."
Completely illegal!
When he used his legitimate powers in order to force another elected official to resign, a power he very much does not have directly, is when he stepped over the line.
Would you be okay with Obama telling Boehner that the treasury is no longer sending any checks out to Republican members of congress?
Some people in this thread are trying to make out that what she did(drive drunk) was in no way related to her office(investigating corruption), and they are right, but once she made threats to use her official power in a vindictive manner, she made her DUI arrest about her office.
Would it have been okay to threaten to defund her department if, say, she was the head of the Texas Education Agency?
Legal? The answer hasn't changed. If what he did was legal, then that would be legal as well.
Okay with the voters? Probably not, too much collateral damage, different people will draw the line at different places, but I suspect for most, that would be a bridge too far.
Because, again, there is actually a specific law that says "Sleep with me or I fire you!" is illegal (and undesirable for a host of reasons).
There isn't, to my knowledge, an anti-"Go with me to this hockey game or I fire you!" law, so that would be legal.
No, I wouldn't be okay with Obama doing that, because the President of these United States does not have line-item veto powers, and thank goodness for that. And if he did something like that, I would expect Congress to override his veto in a stunning display of bipartisan action (acting in their own self-interest).
And, furthermore, if he did have a line item veto, I'm not sure "So-and-so, step down from the Appropriations committee or I will line-item veto funding for [your pet project Y]" would be beyond the pale - especially given Congress's ability to override that veto if there is not broad-based political support for his action.
At some point, you need to maintain a working relationship with the legislature, so I see this as largely self-correcting.
But then, I think the real problem here is the line item veto that enables these shenanigans, so ...
And, again, I wouldn't be averse to this being made illegal at the end of the day through enactment of additional laws (if it isn't, in fact, already illegal), but I foresee difficulty in writing a law narrow enough to outlaw something like this while also allowing the normal, day-to-day use of veto threats.
I feel like I should also point out that he didn't actually make her resign. She refused, he followed through on his veto of state funds appropriation, and someone else picked up the tab.
Steam: Elvenshae // PSN: Elvenshae // WotC: Elvenshae
Wilds of Aladrion: [https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/comment/43159014/#Comment_43159014]Ellandryn[/url]
Yes, she probably should be investigated / indicted for using her public office to coerce the officers or whatever. I mean, usually a person is just prosecuted for the DUI and not the stupid comments they made to the cops while they are drunk, but sure. Whatever.
Still doesn't excuse Perry breaking the law. You're not going to find any situation regarding HER actions that excuse Perry's actions.
If she ate a baby live on TV, it still doesn't excuse Perry breaking the law to remove her from office.
You are conflating two very different things. Nobody in the thread has ever said they had a problem with Perry demanding her resignation. Whether or not she should have resigned or deserved to be removed from office through the proper means is completely irrelevant. The issue at hand is whether or not it was legal for the Governor to use his otherwise constitutionally legal power of the line item veto as a means of punishment/coercion/persuasion to attempt to force an action he otherwise isn't legally capable of.
It basically comes down to:
1) It is legal for Perry to request someone's resignation who's office isn't under his authority.
2) It is legal for Perry to use his power of the line item veto to strike funding for the Public Integrity Unit.
3) It is not legal for Perry to forcibly remove her from office.
4) It is unclear whether it is legal to use #2 as a cudgel to attempt to circumvent #3.
Irrelevant. If I try to blackmail you, it's illegal even if you refuse to go along with it. The attempt itself is what is against the law.
The Green Goblin from the first Sam Raimi Spider-Man called, he wants his expression back
Oh god.
Cannot be unseen.
I am not conflating, there are multiple issues in play.
1. There are people trying to make the argument that while what she did was wrong, it is not connected to her duties as leader of the PIU, and thus does not warrant her the rest of her department getting dragged into it. I am specifically addressing that argument by pointing out that she dragged her office into it when she made threats to use that department against against the LEOs that arrested her.
2. I have never advocated using illegal means to remove her from office. "This woman should be removed from power" is not the same as "This woman should be removed by any means necessary." Other people are adding the "by any means necessary", not me. I responded to that.
3. I am pretty open to the legality arguments. I don't think what he did was illegal based on the sheer number of pundits saying this indictment is not legit which I admit is an appeal to authority, but then fallacy fallacy. If you scroll back, you will see that I completely agree that we are dealing with a grey area as to what defines "normal political coercion". If you notice I consistantly say IF it was illegal. I recognize that the legality is not a clearly settled issue.
Only if it is, in fact, blackmail. If it isn't blackmail (the use of which is illegal) and is instead legally protected exercise of your first amendment rights, then it is not illegal to do what he did.
Steam: Elvenshae // PSN: Elvenshae // WotC: Elvenshae
Wilds of Aladrion: [https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/comment/43159014/#Comment_43159014]Ellandryn[/url]
The attempt is specifically exempted in the law. We have been over this a bunch of times. The last two pages are 100% rehashing the same conversation as the ones before it, including this exact argument.
Agents of government bodies are allowed to try and coerce each other, with their government powers, into doing official things as agents of the government.
"Resign or I'll cut your department's funding" is no more blackmail than "support my idea x or I'll veto your bill y" ,or even "tell the truth to the committee or you're fired". You might not like it morally, but legally it looks almost certain to break Perry's way.
We seriously have talked about this over and over - if you want to make this argument from the "it's illegal" side you've got to do the heavy lifting here and tackle reason why in the statutes.
You get the argument slightly wrong... "The issue at hand is whether or not it was legal for the Governor to use his otherwise constitutionally legal power of the line item veto as a means of punishment/coercion/persuasion to attempt to force an action she is capable of."
The governor doesn't have to be capable of taking an action in order to threaten to veto a bill if it's not taken. The target of the threat has to be able to take the action officially in her capacity as an agent of the government. Resignation clearly is an official action, and she has the power to do it.
Maybe that's true. Perhaps we should wait until we have some details before saying definitively one way or the other that Perry was 100% in the clear.
We do that openly and proudly here anyways! Dumb educashun.
It's one of the things I hate the most about Perry, which is why I used it as an example in my question.
It's been pointed out that this interpretation of the law was decided in a different jurisdiction and is non-binding to the jurisdiction in question. So it's not quite as open-and-shut as you're making it out to be. But I have a feeling you will be proven correct and I think he'll probably rightly get off, but that's a fucking idiotic law. If he was supposed to have the power to forcibly nudge her to resign, he'd have been expressly given that power. It just feels like an invitation of over-step his authority.
Your argument isn't nearly as bulletproof as you are saying for one simple reason.
Perry was indicted.
We don't have the evidence that was presented to the Grand Jury to speculate on due to the gag order. But, with the members of the Grand Jury saying that there is a lot more than 'nothing' there, I'm not going to make any absolute statements either way about Perry's guilt. However, I'm not aware of anywhere in Texas's statutes where the governor is specifically allowed to use his official powers to coerce the resignation of his political opponents in this manner.
Can you cite this specific law?
But I do agree that - in the end - things are probably going to break Perry's way. Unless there is a shitload of clear cut evidence well beyond even what we're assuming here, we're not going to end up with another Blagojevich.
You're right, you can't speak for all Texans. This has nothing to do with her getting drunk, it has everything to do with how Perry decided to wield his power like a truncheon illegally.
All of the attempts to compare this to another situation are ridiculous.
It's not like any of that.
Know what it is like?
It's like the governor of the state decided to threaten an entire department of the state government if the elected official he could not fire didn't resign.
That's exactly right. The problem is that it's not clear cut whether or not that's illegal. It's shady as shit, and ethically dubious, but the legality of doing that is not clear from either side of the argument.
Yes! I've done so a bunch of times!
http://patterico.com/2014/08/16/jonathan-chait-is-correct-this-indictment-of-rick-perry-is-unbelievably-ridiculous-with-bonus-detailed-legal-analysis/
Here it is in more dense legal form: http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/08/16/is-the-indictment-of-texas-gov-rick-perry-inconsistent-with-a-texas-court-of-appeals-precedent-as-to-the-coercion-count/
I think we could craft a better law, but I'm not sure of that. I'd like there to be, because this does seem to invite some weird abuse edge cases in the future. Here's Volokh again, thinking about that idea:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/08/20/another-way-of-thinking-about-the-problems-with-the-rick-perry-indictment/
In the timeline, this happens before her drunk driving arrest. That seems to blow the conspiracy accusation completely out of the water.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/19/opinion/is-gov-perrys-bad-judgment-really-a-crime.html?_r=1
This doesn't carry a lot of weight with me but you guys might like it as a source...
If the prevailing interpretation of the law is correct (a point not necessarily conceded), it seems that as long as both actions are legal in a vacuum, than it's legal. Perry's use of a line item veto to cut the funding for the PIU is his legal right. It is Lehmberg's legal right to resign. So that makes Perry's coercion legal. It's a special exemption written for political office holders. The action (veto) is legal so the only way for it's use to be illegal is by using the threat of it to attempt to force someone to do something illegal. It is treated no differently that an Perry threatening "You pass funding for my pet project, or I'll veto funding for your's."
Unless there's a law somewhere specifically stating that it is illegal for the Governor to interfere with a PIU investigation (which there very well may be), yes. It'd be legal to do so. The reason this doesn't happen more often is because it'd be monumentally stupid to do so. Can in imagine the political/public blow-back if he came out and said that he was going to cut their funding unless they stop investigating him? Which is still incredibly problematic.
Just so we are clear you are agreeing with me that this isn't about the drunk driving?
I like how you confirm how I cannot speak for all Texans, which is something I clearly admitted, but then proceed to claim "it has everything to do with Perry decided to wield his power like a truncheon". Who exactly are you speaking for?
It does seem problematic in theory, but also true and also not problematic in practice. We have a good example of this already, when Perry did not issue any threats of any kind while the PIU was trying to destroy Republican House Majority Leader Tom Delay.
... or assuming you know what the outcome of the trial is before it's happened?
Steam: Elvenshae // PSN: Elvenshae // WotC: Elvenshae
Wilds of Aladrion: [https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/comment/43159014/#Comment_43159014]Ellandryn[/url]
Show me where I did this?