Oh, colonial times I know about ;):
Gouverneur Morris: New York abstains. Courteously.
John Hancock: Mr. Morris. (starts to get up, then pauses)
JH: WHAT IN HELL GOES ON IN NEW YORK?!!
GM: The truth is, Mr. President, that the New York Legislature has never given me explicit instructions on anything.
JH: Nothing?! That’s impossible. :sits down grumpily:
GM: Mr. President, have you ever been to a meeting of the NY Legislature?
:JH shakes his head:
GM: They speak very fast, and very loud, and nobody ever listens to anyone else, with the result that nothing ever gets done.
JH: My sympathies, Mr. Morris.
(Quoting 1776 is obligatory whenever there is a thread about the NY Legislature, since it always gets around to how incompetent it is.)
The truth of the matter is, we have a ‘three men in a room’ system. They get everything done. Problem is?
We’re down one man, thanks to Spitzer/Paterson. So… deadlock.
Just to clarify the paragraph that Bricker objected to my “example” in:
There have been, AFAICT, allegations of actual money-or-the-equivalent-changes-hands bribes, with a little evid3nce but nothing conclusive. In addition, and lending weight to the bought-off scenario, I adduced the factual, uncontested appointment as President Pro Tem. Not “b is an example of a” but “a is alleged; b is documented and suggestive that a is more than rumor.” I realize it was a confusing paragraph.
1776? Try 1641.
Trust me when I say it never, ever goes well.
If there was a link to the story somewhere in this thread, I missed it. Is it really as ridiculously melodramatic as Bricker made it out to be in the OP?
Be very careful about this, most legislatures use Mason’s Manual not Robert’s Rules.
Mason’s Manual?? I just knew the Illuminati were involved somehow! 
Anyone else hearing Yakety Sax’ in their heads as they try and imagine the scene ?
Does that include the sexy women in bras, panties, garters, stocking and nothing else being chased around a room?
Then yeah.
As melodramatic? No, slightly more so.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/14/nyregion/14democracy.html?ref=nyregion
A: Mysterious millionaire.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/11/nyregion/11racial.html
B: Two Assemblymen running wild, seeking money to try to get them off various charges, before they get thrown out on their ass.
C: One critical political position unfilled allowing this to happen.
D: Random burglary of said crook’s home.
A note to above: The 1642 Council of Twelve not only did not give Kieft the answer he wanted, they reccomended individuals have rights, according to the custom in Holland, they wanted a prohibition on English cattle, and they wanted themselves or a like body to become a permanent representative body for the people.
(That’s right, democracy in the US goes back a long ways. As does the NY Assembly wandering off on their own. I mean, call people for a declaration of war… and you get a reccomendation on cattle?)
Kieft, despite starting a Bush-like war on the Indians, was not the worst pre-revolutionary Governer we had, though.
I love my state. It’s so gloriously screwed up. But somehow we managed to keep doing the right thing. Or at least we try, and then some autocrat overrules it.
I think New York was getting upset that everyone was talking about Chicago being more corrupt than New York, so New York being unable to allow Chicago to be ‘more’ anything, has been making a run for the title of ‘most corrupt in America’. Watch out Chicago and Detroit, we’re coming for ya!
Now, now. This is underhanded double dealing, but there’s no actual corruption here, just politics. I mean, nobody’s demanding a hundred thousand bucks to their campaign for horseracing legislation. That’s corruption.
Besides, we already got the gold standard in corruption. Boss Tweed and Tammany Hall.
True, true, but that’s like appealing to Babe Ruth when the series comes around. You still have to be ready to back your play, y’knowutimsayin? Chicago was getting a lot of press after they put that commie into the Presidency, and we just need to y’know represent. But we’re comin out swingin’ over here in the Big Apple. I mean the Mayor and the City Council just voted themselves third terms against Democratic referendum. I’ll give Chicago that their Governor’s disgrace was way cooler than ours. Selling a Senate seat, now that’s proper corruption. Seeing a Prostitute? Hell, as far as politicians go, that’s not even corrupt. But voting yourself a third term, and voting yourself into the majority party by offering the leadership positions to the criminal scumbags willing to flip party? Now that’s some grade A low-life shit right there!
Chicago’s doing just fine this year. Blago’s the gift that keeps giving. What, you thought I made that example up?
Well, it really would depend on whether there was a law in New York against that sort of thing. Is there such a law in New York? Why yes there is. http://www.nyc.gov/html/doi/html/whistblr-awar.html#reg1
There doesn’t seem to be an exception for Republickins.
The answer to this question (both parts) is no. Admittedly, the latest brouhaha in the Senate is more inexplicable and indefensible than most, but it’s a more a matter of degree.
Until this last election there was a long-standing arrangement under which the Assembly was controlled by the Democrats and the Senate was controlled by the Republicans. Things like redistricting of legislative districts were left in the control of the respective houses, so the Assembly districted to gain Democratic seats, and the Senate to gain Republican. Also, because members of each house in the minority party were entirely powerless, the voters tended to vote for legislators in the majority party in the respective houses, except for overwhelmingly Democratic or Republican districts.
A related bit of legislative structuring was that the majority leaders of each house had almost unlimited power over their bodies. They could appoint people to (and remove people from) committees and other legislative posts, many of which came with stipends. They would use these powers to reward supporters, and more significantly, to punish dissidents. As such, legislative discipline was virtually iron-clad.
This lead to the “three men in a room” syndrome, by which virtually all legislative progress would occur only when the Assembly Speaker, the Senate Majority Leader and the Governor agreed, and anything that could be worked out among these three leaders would become law.
Despite New York becoming bluer and bluer, this system persisted until last year’s election, in which the Democrats took 32 of the 62 seats in the Senate. Meanwhile, Governor Spitzer having imploded, the state’s chief executive was the unpopular and increasingly ineffective Governor Patterson. Added to the mix was gay marriage, which Governor Patterson and the Assembly supported, but several Democratic Senators opposed. Indeed, the gay marriage issue threatened to derail the initial organization of the Senate after the election.
So, this week, with the gay marriage question coming up for a vote and a governor with popularity at Dick Cheney levels, two Senators somewhat slimier than most decided they could gain some power by upsetting the apple cart.
Had we had a strong or politically astute governor, or a legislature with a tradition or history of acting coherently, this never would have happened. Indeed, I think the tragedy of Elliot Spitzer is that he seemed going in to be the one person who could possibly have reformed the absolutely toxic politics of Albany.
In any event, the Senate is now convulsing, and will probably do so for the next several months.
In addition to what you’ve already read, there’s also this gem. In a nutshell, Golisano, our friendly Billionaire, strongly supported ($$$$) the Dems in the last election cycle and helped them gain control of the Senate. Golisano is peeved that the Dems aren’t doing anything to reform the system, like he was “promised” they would, and has a meeting with Malcom Smith, the Senate Majority Leader. Golisano travels to Albany, sits down with Smith, and notices that Smith is spending the entire meeting reading e-mails on his BlackBerry.
Food for thought… don’t piss off a billionaire.
Nor am I suggesting there is an exception for Republicans, no matter how the word is spelled.
But I am suggesting that conduct like this is non-justiciable.
Consider the following scenario:
“I need one more vote for my bill to establish a community park in Ward 7. Can I count on you?”
“I don’t know – can I count on YOU to support my bill to allow concealed weapons carry in the city-owned marina?”
“Sure, I’ll give you that.”
“Then I’m in.”
Legal? Or not?
Hmmm, isn’t that pretty much how Hamilton got the first national bank and the Southern states got the capital moved to Washington, DC?
Yup.