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

[Agnostic_Pagan]

@Shodan

I see that you have not read any of the thread. So it goes.

Regards,
Shodan

I see that you have not read any of the bills and the supporting documents. So it goes.

Do you understand the difference between being asked to resign and being forcibly removed? Plus GM asked, indeed begged, for the bailout. And no dictator was imposed on GM with broad discretionary powers, minimal reporting requirements, and no mechanism for recall or challenge by the people affected once installed. GM’s board structure and internal management where left under their control. Any shakeups where instituted by GM, not a presidential appointee.

These proposals are not comparable to the actions taken in regard to the firms that received the government bailouts.

Do you honestly think this series of bills (153 - 158) are good law? Are necessary?

This is a ‘cure’ far, far worse than the disease. The mechanisms grant far too much power to one person (or firm). This bill is OCP’s wet dream. I doubt even Verhoeven imagined such a bill ever being proposed in real life.

[Chronos]

Quoth Martin Hyde:

So how do those that think this is the most evil thing ever done propose a State handles this situation:

In California, many small municipalities are tied in to the state wide public employee retirement system. A small municipality decides to start paying its small staff of civil servants $800,000 a year. These actions eventually cause the municipality to go bankrupt. However, the pensions that these individuals are now entitled to are not washed away in that bankruptcy, instead the taxpayers of the whole State of California have to foot that bill. Since pensions are based typically on x number of years of your highest earnings, these people will be entitled to massive annual benefits, in perpetuity.

In that case, I would propose that the state modify the rules of its own pension system to put a sanity cap on the amount of retirement benefits to be paid, regardless of the employee’s maximum salary. Ideally, the state would do this before anyone tried to pull such a caper, but if nobody noticed the problem until after it happened, I would recommend that the state sue the beneficiaries for the difference.

[Digital_Stimulus]

Statement cited:

@Agnostic_Pagan

Nor do I recall the wholesale firing of GMs executives, or even its board.

Response, with cite:

@Shodan

The Obama administration asked Rick Wagoner, the chairman and CEO of General Motors, to step down and he agreed, a White House official said.

Shodan: partaking in false equivalencies and strawmen since 2000.

[gonzomax]

@Digital_Stimulus

Statement cited:

Response, with cite:

Shodan: partaking in false equivalencies and strawmen since 2000.

You should also recall the auto workers taking huge cuts in salaries and benefits. The workers at the banks did not have to take cuts. they were so important that you could not do that to such high class people. The bankers caused the mess . The auto workers did not. The bankers skated with big bonuses and salaries.

[Saint_Cad]

Because this is local government and not state government, is it still a violation of Article IV Section 4?

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government,

[Bricker]

@Saint_Cad

Because this is local government and not state government, is it still a violation of Article IV Section 4?

No, it’s not. As you surmise, the federal guarantee of a republican goverment applies to the states, not to local subdivisions.

[Bricker]

@njtt

The fact that the two situations may be different in law is not really relevant to whether they are morally or prudentially equivalent. I think what people are suggesting is that, even if it is legal for states to usurp municipalities in this way, it will almost always be a very bad thing for them to do so, just as the Framers apparently believed that it would be a very bad thing for the federal government to usurp the states (and thus wrote the constitution accordingly).

Perhaps most people are suggesting that, but this makes a case for actuall illegality, doesn’t it?

@Ogre

The legal challenges are probably already being drafted. If it holds up on a state level, it MUST be challenged in the Supreme Court.

[Chronos]

No, it’s not. As you surmise, the federal guarantee of a republican goverment applies to the states, not to local subdivisions.

Again, though, hasn’t that clause been used to invalidate state senates with equal representation for each county? Counties are local subdivisions of states, too. If it’s a violation of my Constitutional right to a republican form of government for my large county to have only the same number of state senators as a small county, how is it not also a violation of that same right for state-level officials to replace the local politicians I elected?