Quantcast

Should a Governor be able to violate the Constitution of 'their' State, for any reason

Jwalden --- Constitution Party 2009/09/27 21:40:00
Yes - Explain
No - Explain
You!
Add Photos & Videos
Inspired from response to a previous posting - -
http://www.sodahead.com/united-states/massachusetts-republica...
Do you agree that the Governor of a State should be able to violate his/her State's Constitution simply because it agrees with the will of the people?
Add a comment above

Top Opinion

  • donedunn 2009/09/27 22:10:47
    No - Explain
    donedunn
    +5
    No. A constitution or charter is the rules of the road. If people don't agree with some provision of it than pass legislation and go through the process of ammending it. Otherwise the elected officals have a duty to uphold the constitution of their state.

    In this particular case, it is a prime example of how liberals view the law as a weapon and a means to an end. Here you have a group of people that modified the law to be one way when it was in their favor and then rescind the law when it is no longer in their favor.

    Wouldn't you like to do that? Would you like to make some laws apply only to everyone else and not yourself?

    This is the liberal mindset.

Sort By
  • Most Raves
  • Least Raves
  • Oldest
  • Newest
Opinions

  • skroehr 2009/09/29 01:26:09 (edited)
    No - Explain
    skroehr
    +1
    It's pretty self evident. If elected leaders violate the constitutions they were elected and sworn to uphold and protect, then they are in breach of contract. This is why most constitutions held by federal republics and other democratic based institutions have an article of impeachment in their constitution. So that the remainder of the government, who wish to abide by the constitutional agreement with the governed may keep or restore constitutional order, and keep power from those not in agreement with the constitution of that state, province, federal government etc. If the plurality of the government will not uphold or protect, then the document and it's concepts are rendered useless, and there is anarchy.
  • Gregaj7 2009/09/28 16:36:29
    No - Explain
    Gregaj7
    +1
    Rule of law (contracts).
  • Racefish 2009/09/28 02:02:45
    No - Explain
    Racefish
    +1
    Every governor at some time or other probably makes the mistake of doing it. One particular case comes to mind. Ted Kennedy had a law passed that he thought would be a great thing when Romney was governor. Considering that Kerry was running for the Presidency, had he won, Romney most likely, would have appointed a Republican to fill that vacant seat. Of course Teddy and the heavily Democrat state Legislature couldn't possibly allow that so they passed a law that made it mandatory that the Governor must hold an election without appointing a successor. The law Kennedy had gotten passed in Mass. was probably unconstitutional to begin with.

    Amendment XVII

    The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each state, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each state shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the state legislatures.

    When vacancies happen in the representation of any state in the Senate, the executive authority of such state shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, that the legislature of any state may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the leg...



    Every governor at some time or other probably makes the mistake of doing it. One particular case comes to mind. Ted Kennedy had a law passed that he thought would be a great thing when Romney was governor. Considering that Kerry was running for the Presidency, had he won, Romney most likely, would have appointed a Republican to fill that vacant seat. Of course Teddy and the heavily Democrat state Legislature couldn't possibly allow that so they passed a law that made it mandatory that the Governor must hold an election without appointing a successor. The law Kennedy had gotten passed in Mass. was probably unconstitutional to begin with.

    Amendment XVII

    The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each state, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each state shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the state legislatures.

    When vacancies happen in the representation of any state in the Senate, the executive authority of such state shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, that the legislature of any state may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct.

    This amendment shall not be so construed as to affect the election or term of any Senator chosen before it becomes valid as part of the Constitution.

    As the appointment of an interim was already outlined in the US Constitution, anything the State had enacted would need to be in line with this amendment.
    (more)
  • Colbert 2009/09/28 02:01:26
    Yes - Explain
    Colbert
    I voted yes, because it's the obvious answer.
  • Zuggi 2009/09/28 01:40:31
    No - Explain
    Zuggi
    +1
    However, I'm reasonably certain the 90 day waiting period is not constitutional in nature and is instead traditional.
  • MADMAC 2009/09/28 01:20:30
    No - Explain
    MADMAC
    +2
    No, the governor nor anyone else in government anywhere should be able to defy the constitutions of state or country.

    Unless perhaps there were a dire life or death situation for the masses that would not allow for the proper avenues to be used. Honestly I can’t think of what that might even be!

    I sure don’t see that in the case you point out!

    Respectfully, MADMAC
  • Bill 2009/09/28 01:01:56
    No - Explain
    Bill
    +1
    the state constitutionis there to protect the people of that state and the founding fathers thought the state should govern their own and should not violate it for their own selfish greed
  • lulu 2009/09/28 00:45:25
    No - Explain
    lulu
    +1
    Absolutely not. Politicians should be held to high standards...yes higher standards than others. I know they are humans and make mistakes, but that is no excuse for a violation of their state constitution, when they are not only representing their state but should be setting an example.
  • LVslotdoc 2009/09/27 23:47:47
    No - Explain
    LVslotdoc
    +1
    If I can't run down the street buck nekkid without getting arrested, then I would have to say, "NO!!"
  • sglmom 2009/09/27 23:42:59
    No - Explain
    sglmom
    +1
    NO ...

    the Constitution (charter/Articles of incorporation) are there as the GUIDE .. the book that states what are the rules .. responsibilities, limitations .. rights of each of the parties to the agreement. IF there is some 'disagreement' witht hat .. then there needs to be followed the PROCESS to go about amending it.

    Elected Officials are of several types .. ADMINISTRATORS (Governors, President, City Mayors for example) are there to ADMINISTRATE to the letter of the law and stay within the BOUNDS of what the citizens have stated they want them to do.

    Legislators can propose changes .. authorizations (legal authority to commit to spend) and appropriations (the actual paper .. the putting out there of the 'promise to pay' for x/y/z). (again .. for example).

    ANYTHING else .. when you don't feel like following the Guidelines provided by your own constitution .. as an elected official .. then one should BE ARRESTED, Charged, and prosecuted .. held PERSONALLY Responsible for the things that they do.
  • Reaper 2009/09/27 23:08:47
    No - Explain
    Reaper
    +3
    openly violating the state constitution should be immediate termination of duty and taken into custody for a couple of weeks to make sure he doesn't get away with anything
  • Old Soldier 2009/09/27 22:56:18
    Yes - Explain
    Old Soldier
    +1
    Actually, yes. Flordia added an amendment making it unlawful to smoke in any government or commercial building in the state. That took a vote of the people to pass. In 1998, my wife passed a law against smoking in our house following the end of her Cancer treatments, her one vote was a majority, that law was passed a year or three before the state Constitution law was put on the ballot. However, the state law passed easily, also.
  • Sheila 2009/09/27 22:50:06
    No - Explain
    Sheila
    +1
    The Democrats love to do things that help them. If it does not help them then they fight it. Pretty tipical of a liberal if you ask me.
  • kydso 2009/09/27 22:49:44
    No - Explain
    kydso
    +2
    NO, donedunn, said it.
  • TruBluTopaz 2009/09/27 22:29:41
    No - Explain
    TruBluTopaz
    +3
    Laws are written for a reason. This law was written to bolster the Democrats in power. Now that it might hurt their cause, they seek to ignore it. We are either a nation of laws or not. Oh, sorry, I forgot who was in power...... bolster democrats power hurt seek ignore nation laws forgot power
  • Kane Fernau 2009/09/27 22:19:43
    No - Explain
    Kane Fernau
    +2
    Teddymandering!
  • The Frog Prince 2009/09/27 22:19:01
    No - Explain
    The Frog Prince
    +2
    A Constitution is law. Rather simple concept.
  • donedunn 2009/09/27 22:10:47
    No - Explain
    donedunn
    +5
    No. A constitution or charter is the rules of the road. If people don't agree with some provision of it than pass legislation and go through the process of ammending it. Otherwise the elected officals have a duty to uphold the constitution of their state.

    In this particular case, it is a prime example of how liberals view the law as a weapon and a means to an end. Here you have a group of people that modified the law to be one way when it was in their favor and then rescind the law when it is no longer in their favor.

    Wouldn't you like to do that? Would you like to make some laws apply only to everyone else and not yourself?

    This is the liberal mindset.
  • ὤTṻnde΄ӂ 2009/09/27 22:00:17
    Yes - Explain
    ὤTṻnde΄ӂ
    +1
    Not violate it (like Bush did our Constitution) but certainly can suggest bills and have the legislature vote on it--which they did.
    Laws can be changed and are ALL THE TIME. As long as the legislative body (which makes laws) changes the law. Get over it. Paul Kirk is sworn in.
  • donedunn ὤTṻnde΄ӂ 2009/09/27 22:14:43
    donedunn
    +2
    Its all about consistency. Thats important in your line of work, right? You have to apply the rules the same to everyone? (event though I am sure there are those you would rather treat differently). Why wouldn't the same be true for politicians? Why wouldn't your side demand it of yours?
  • Dan D 2009/09/27 21:48:32
    No - Explain
    Dan D
    +3
    No. Constitutions are meant to limit government. They all have ways to amend them. Allowing them to extend their power without following the process would just allow them to grab power.

See Votes by State

The map above displays the winning answer by region.

News & Politics

2014/12/22 17:05:40

Hot Questions on SodaHead
More Hot Questions

More Community More Originals