Michigan Republicans create "financial martial law"; appointees to replace elected local officials

See here and here


I always knew Republican lip service supporting “local government” over centralized government was just hypocritical bullshit

Topics for discussion:
[li]Can this bill pass a court challenge (e.g. due to power of an unelected person to fire elected officials)?[/li][li]Do you support this bill?[/li][li]How do you think this will play out? Will the people just roll over and take it?[/li][/ul]

I have no idea, but I’ve been watching this myself.

Our wealthy overlords can be trusted to run the towns and cities like the magnanimous and generous selfless people they are. They could install the 99 rules of occupation the Bremer did in Iraq.l Then all would be well.

One hopes they’ll be greeted as liberators, also in the Iraqi mode.

1.) I have no idea.
2.) I myself, as a resident of southern Indiana, think that the states are ultimately going have to eliminate inefficent governmental units. I saw a recent Yahoo story that said about one-quarter of this country’s counties are dying. In Indiana, you can see several of those counties like Sullivan. No business or industry, little chance of getting any, the young people moving out in droves, and the old people howling about property taxes. Yet Sullivan County is supporting three schools, one of them one of the smallest in the state, largely because of basketball. I live in Greene County, which has a population of about 32,000 with little prospect of growth and hardly any industry, and yet we have five schools, once again so small towns can have their goddamn basketball.
I think the Indiana General Assembly should force consolidation of these small podunk schools (I wouldn’t send my dog to a lot of the rural schools in this state) and force consolidation of those dying counties. I think other states are going to have to do the same thing.
However, I would try to to this in the spirit of improving things in the state. I suspect the Michigan Republicans are going to go after the Detroit schools and city government. Something needs to be done about Detroit, of course, but if I was a Detroit teacher, I would be getting ready to hit the streets.
3.) If the Republicans confine their actions to Detroit, they may get away with it because if Michigan is like the rest of the Old Midwest, there is a bit of racism and let’s face it, Detroit needs major help. I don’t know what could be done, but something has to be done. As for the rest of the state, the Republicans may face a battle royale.

If it passes, there’s a provision in the legislation to make it so it can’t be overturned by voter referendum, as well.

That sounds utterly ridiculous to me.

The Governor would be allowed to, essentially, nullify the results of any election he didn’t like as long as he slaps a, “I had to to do it,” tag on it. Yeah, I’m sure there would be no abuse or controversy whatsoever.

The legal challenges are probably already being drafted. If it holds up on a state level, it MUST be challenged in the Supreme Court. This is the beginning of dictatorship, and if Snyder, etc. refuse to budge, they should be dragged out of the statehouse by force, by the military, if necessary.

You object to dictatorship, yet suggest military enforcement? The irony, it burns.

I think Michigan’s state troopers would suffice to escort the power mad fool from the state house. Better them than a mob with pitchforks.

Only if the legislation were found unconstitutional and if it were made necessary by refusal to comply.

So, let me get this straight. Are you actually such an ideologue that you support systematically undermining the basic American electoral process?

Did I say anything remotely close to that? Pretty sure I didn’t. Just commented on your rather amusing word choice. I have no intention of defending this action.

Then I’m happy you’re amused.

So you are suggesting a Second Amendment solution? :smiley:


I believe the suggestion involved Real Soldiers. Not a “well ordered militia.”

Can one of our legal eagles shed a little light on this? How is this even constitutional? If I understand this correctly, it would allow a privately appointed person to muck about with everything we vote on and be unaccountable to the people entirely.

The article doesn’t make it sound like this is something totally now -

And it appears the EMF is answerable to the Legislature -

So it is more like a judge than a governor.


For some values of “legal eagle” I suppose I qualify…and the only argument I can think of to justify this as constitutional would be some sort of “emergency powers” clause, possibly in the State Constitution. And I think even that is a stretch. I think the power to do a lesser form of that exists in some places. In my state, it is possible for the State to take over a local school district for continued non-performance–but that’s several orders of magnitude below a town government…

Also, I noticed that the state legislature defeated an amendment that would have limited the EMF’s salary to that of the governor - so basically (I guess?) the governor can choose to pay the EMF whatever he sees fit.

In terms of the legality, I have no idea. In general principal, however, having a hatchetman come in once every hundred years to clean things up is probably a good thing, overall. But right now, this is stupid.

Cutting costs is the worst thing to do during a recession. All costs on an object are the sum total of all labor that was paid to create that object, or that were expected to be hired to make even more objects. That means that cutting costs means laying people off and lowering your hiring rate.