For those who voted Republican, you just screwed democracy.

[detroiter62]

This is the section of the Michigan constitution - the Michigan house does not have a 2/3 majority

§ 27 Laws, effective date.
Sec. 27. No act shall take effect until the expiration of 90 days from the end of the session
at which it was passed, but the legislature may give immediate effect to acts by a two-thirds
vote of the members elected to and serving in each house.
History: Const. 1963, Art. IV, §27, Eff. Jan. 1, 1964.
Constitutionality: A law proposed by initiative petition which is enacted by the Legislature without change or amendment within
forty days of its reception takes effect ninety days after the end of the session in which it was enacted unless two-thirds of the members of each
house of the Legislature vote to give it immediate effect. Frey v. Department of Management and Budget, 429 Mich. 315, 414 N.W.2d 873 [[1987).
Former Constitution: See Const. 1908, Art. V, §21.

[Hermod]

This is the section of the Michigan constitution - the Michigan house does not have a 2/3 majority

§ 27 Laws, effective date.
Sec. 27. No act shall take effect until the expiration of 90 days from the end of the session
at which it was passed, but the legislature may give immediate effect to acts by a two-thirds
vote of the members elected to and serving in each house.
History: Const. 1963, Art. IV, §27, Eff. Jan. 1, 1964.
Constitutionality: A law proposed by initiative petition which is enacted by the Legislature without change or amendment within
forty days of its reception takes effect ninety days after the end of the session in which it was enacted unless two-thirds of the members of each
house of the Legislature vote to give it immediate effect. Frey v. Department of Management and Budget, 429 Mich. 315, 414 N.W.2d 873 [[1987).
Former Constitution: See Const. 1908, Art. V, §21.

Has a "legislative session" ended since the law was passed? Usually, the legislative session is less than one year.

If they are waiting for the law to become legal, it could be why they are trying to negotiate a consent agreement. If the law was passed in 2011, the session had already ended.

[rjk]

If I just arrived in Michigan from another planet I would find Rachel Maddow's comments alarming and scary. However since I'm quite aware of what's going on in Michigan [[Detroit, Flint, Benton Harbor) it's nothing more than RM throwing out red meat to her audience.

[Mikeg]

Did anyone see the story on Rachel Maddow, about how the Michigan House of Representatives is putting laws into immediate effect.......

What I find amazing is that all three of Rachel Maddow's viewers also happen to be members here at DetroitYes and they each felt compelled to create their own separate thread about her latest fulmination!

detroiter62
Michigan Legislature puts laws into immediate effect without supermajority

Fulcanelli
Important Story about How Draconian Laws are Getting Passed in MI

Whitehouse
For those who voted Republican, you just screwed democracy.


Well done, "ditto-heads" [[or whatever you call yourselves)!

How much do you get paid for creating these threads? Do you get paid per thread or by the total number of views? I keep hearing that this is what those on the other side of the political spectrum do to get their talking points out on the Internet.

[Hermod]

Ah, but Rush Limbaugh is an amazing success in that his political enemies hang on his every word.

Why do you think he uses the terms
"doctor of democracy"
"America's anchorman"
"harmless little fuzzball"
"all-seeing, all-knowing Maharushi"
"guaranteed to be right 99.6% of the time"
"America's truth detector"
as much as he does?

That is so that all the liberals listening in can gouge their eyes out with spoons. His program attracts a large, liberal audience just so they can be outraged.

In that, his listening numbers prove he is successful.

[louis]

when you have so much bureaucracy that it is deemed more efficient to chose a dictator to get things done you know its time to rethink the way we govern

[Big Dog]

Where does either rank on the truth meter?

[Mikeg]

.....name me an MSNBC personality.......

Ohhhh, that's a tough one!

However, we have recently learned the on-line names of all four viewers of MSNBC: everglade carl, detroiter62, Fulcanelli and Whitehouse !

What I find amazing is that all four of them also happen to be members here at DetroitYes and that three of them felt compelled to create their own separate thread on this very same subject:

detroiter62
Michigan Legislature puts laws into immediate effect without supermajority

Fulcanelli
Important Story about How Draconian Laws are Getting Passed in MI

Whitehouse
For those who voted Republican, you just screwed democracy.


Well done, "ditto-heads" [[or whatever you call yourselves)!

How much do you get paid for creating these threads? Do you get paid per thread or by the total number of views? I keep hearing that this is what those on the other side of the political spectrum do to get their talking points out on the Internet.

[rex]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o4EaxRolGXA

actually came to thread this topic. That video kinda changed my perspective a bit. At first I thought. Maybe elected officials need some broad stroke power from time to time in emergency situations. However, whats going on in Lansing isn't right. I'm sorta pissed.

[Detroitnerd]

What I find amazing is that all three of Rachel Maddow's viewers also happen to be members here at DetroitYes and they each felt compelled to create their own separate thread about her latest fulmination!

I suppose that mobilizing a political base is something that should only be done by the right wing?

Don't bother responding with something about Obama. As an independent, I think the whole MY PARTY vs. YOUR PARTY thing is holding the country back. But I will say at least Maddow is a journalist and does her homework, compared to somebody like Rush Limbaugh... who is a fulminator. To listen to you talk, you'd imagine Maddow is stabbing an angry finger in the air and shouting about Marxism...

[JBMcB]

But I will say at least Maddow is a journalist and does her homework, compared to somebody like Rush Limbaugh...

Maddow's claims:

Republicans are abusing a clause in the constitution and not enacting with the proper vote counting - True, but she neglects to mention that Democrats did the exact same thing under Grandholm, which is probably why they haven't been complaining about it until very recently [[when it hit the news)

The EFM law had something to do with Detroit closing a particular school - Completely false, the EFM law has nothing to do with the state running the DPS finances

Republicans used the EFM law to take over Benton Harbor and disenfranchise it's citizens - Except for the fact that Grandholm appointed the EFM for Benton Harbor

She may do great research, but she leaves out a shocking [[shocking! amount of relevant information. I wonder why?

I searched and it seems as though Maddow only cares about Republicans causing a school closing in Detroit, and, apparently, cancelling union contracts. I don't see anything in her archives about the incredibly poor performance of DPS, the crushing corruption ruining the CoD... she only seems to care when bad things happen to Detroit when they are caused by Republicans.

[antongast]

I see how this works.

1. detroiter62 makes a post asking about something he/she saw on TV that was relevant to Detroit, and trying to clarify the issue and start a discussion on it.

2. Hermod, Mikeg, and JBMcB start hysterically flinging shit around at the OP, Rachel Maddow, and anyone else unlucky enough to be standing nearby at the time.

3. Discussion successfully derailed!

So, uh, does anyone actually have anything useful to say about this "immediate effect" thing and its constitutionality or lack thereof? Is "the Democrats did it too" a valid defense against an accusation of unconstitutionality? Why is this 90-day delay in our constitution in the first place? Is it a good idea? Is the original reason for enacting it still valid? It seems like there's an interesting discussion to be had here, if anyone is actually interested in having it.

[JBMcB]

So, uh, does anyone actually have anything useful to say about this "immediate effect" thing and its constitutionality or lack thereof?

It sounds like a good idea, but if nobody follows it, it's kinda pointless, isn't it?

Is "the Democrats did it too" a valid defense against an accusation of unconstitutionality?

The main point of contention is a procedural matter. The courts will decide if it's following the constution or not [[or they may decide that it's none of their business). They'll be asking the Democrats why it was constitutional when they did it, but not when the Republicans do it. Do you have an answer?

It seems like there's an interesting discussion to be had here, if anyone is actually interested in having it.

We could have a discussion, but we'd be blowing wind. The politicians will follow the rules only when it's politically expedient to do so. In this case it isn't, so what's the point?

[firstandten]

Where does either rank on the truth meter?

Rachel very well. Rush... well lets just say that his career took off right after the fairness doctrine was repealed which allowed him to say whatever, however he wanted to say it, to whomever would listen, without fear of contradiction.

[antongast]

The main point of contention is a procedural matter. The courts will decide if it's following the constution or not [[or they may decide that it's none of their business). They'll be asking the Democrats why it was constitutional when they did it, but not when the Republicans do it. Do you have an answer?

No, I don't, which is why I'm interested in hearing from someone more well-versed in the law than I am. Maddowblog suggests here that it would make a difference whether House Republicans requested roll-call votes when they were in the minority and had those requests denied, but I don't know whether or not that's the case. It could very well be that the Democrats are just hypocrites, but I don't see how that affects the substantive merits of their accusation one way or the other [[again, if someone who knows something about the law can explain that to me, I'm interested to hear it).

I'm not sure I think the 90-day delay and supermajority requirement for immediate effect are necessarily good things to have in our constitution, since it seems like the state government is paralyzed enough most of the time when it comes to actually accomplishing things without having a built-in paralysis clause, but I also don't think that's something the state legislature [[regardless of who is in power there) should take it upon itself to ignore. If a constitutional amendment to eliminate that provision were proposed, I would probably vote for it, but it has to follow the process we've established for amending our constitution.

[Wesley Mouch]

So, uh, does anyone actually have anything useful to say about this "immediate effect" thing and its constitutionality or lack thereof?

We have accepted the idea that when something we don't like is being done, that it is acceptable to toss all kinds of procedural obstacles in the way. Whether or not its strictly constitutional or not isn't the goal. This is just obstructionism. And we of course notice only the obstructionism of those we don't agree with. Otherwise they're 'freedom fighters'. The effect in the end is paralysis. And that's costly and unnecessary.[/QUOTE]

Is "the Democrats did it too" a valid defense against an accusation of unconstitutionality?

It may not be a valid defense, but it is relevant to the discussion.

Why is this 90-day delay in our constitution in the first place? Is it a good idea? Is the original reason for enacting it still valid? It seems like there's an interesting discussion to be had here, if anyone is actually interested in having it.

I think it is a good idea. But that doesn't justify unnecessary lawsuits ala Robert Davis to just gum up the system and cost everyone a lot of money.

[Mikeg]

Rachel very well. Rush... well lets just say that his career took off right after the fairness doctrine was repealed which allowed him to say whatever, however he wanted to say it, to whomever would listen, without fear of contradiction.

Following the proliferation of electronic media channels, the FCC voted to abolish their Fairness Doctine so that the electronic media could enjoy the same First Amendment rights as their print counterparts.

As far as your comment about Limbaugh being able "to say whatever, however he wanted to say it, to whomever would listen, without fear of contradiction" - have you been living under a rock since Feb. 29, 2012?

[firstandten]

Following the proliferation of electronic media channels, the FCC voted to abolish their Fairness Doctine so that the electronic media could enjoy the same First Amendment rights as their print counterparts.

As far as your comment about Limbaugh being able "to say whatever, however he wanted to say it, to whomever would listen, without fear of contradiction" - have you been living under a rock since Feb. 29, 2012?

I didn't give a value judgement regarding the fairness doctrine,other than the fact that Rush's career took off after it was repealed. Rush gives you any number of misrepresentations, half-truth's and occasionally an outright lie on his show on a daily basis, add to that the name calling, it makes for great ratings. If there was a fairness doctrine in place he would have to put somebody on to refute his points which most likely would have been easy to do.

The only reason he got in trouble with Ms. Fluke was not for his views but the name calling which crossed the line.

[antongast]

We have accepted the idea that when something we don't like is being done, that it is acceptable to toss all kinds of procedural obstacles in the way. Whether or not its strictly constitutional or not isn't the goal. This is just obstructionism. And we of course notice only the obstructionism of those we don't agree with. Otherwise they're 'freedom fighters'. The effect in the end is paralysis. And that's costly and unnecessary.

The American political system is, and always has been, designed to give more weight to those fighting against change than those fighting for it. One person's "separation of powers" and "checks and balances" are another person's "obstructionism" and "procedural obstacles." In countries with parliamentary systems of government, this isn't so much the case, and consequently, for better or for worse, ruling coalitions in those countries are able to effect change much more quickly and easily.

[maxx]

Precisely. Why change a good thing, right? Detroit government has been run exclusively by lib dems for decade after decade after decade... If the City and it's government are in rough shape [[putting it mildly), it is only logical for Detoit voters to seek more lib dem policies, right? We wouldn't want evil CONSERVATIVE ideas like getting our kids out of shit hole schools with a voucher system! Hell no, we won't have the suburban oppression happening to us! Instituting late-20th century police practices like most other cities [[Broken Window Theory & CompStat programs) is just an evil way to send more black people to jail! Cutting taxes & and expediting permitting for small businesses, so that when Detroiters open their own businesses they don't feel obliged to immediately move out of the city to stay afloat? Heresy! Let private businesses bid to plow snow, operate public lighting, and pick up trash at a lower cost to taxpayer? That slits the throat of the working man!

Jackass suburban oppressors KEEP OUT of the liberal Utopia that is Detroit! Keep on rocking in the unfree world!

In 1972, the federal gov. started a program called revenue sharing which went to states, cities, and counties. This brought a lot of extra money to those groups and spread around the wealth. Since Reagan, that generosity has stopped and states and cities are competing for dollars. It has left many cities, not just Detroit, with financial problems especially since the Republican orchestrated real estate bubble which created the hole we've been climbing out of since 2009. That said, Detroit has not done an adequate job of collecting taxes, but neither has the IRS which, I heard this morning, allows $3Trillion of taxes to slip through their fingers and that is not including the Bush tax cuts.

[maxx]

The American political system is, and always has been, designed to give more weight to those fighting against change than those fighting for it. One person's "separation of powers" and "checks and balances" are another person's "obstructionism" and "procedural obstacles." In countries with parliamentary systems of government, this isn't so much the case, and consequently, for better or for worse, ruling coalitions in those countries are able to effect change much more quickly and easily.

And they change governments without lengthy expensive campaign seasons.

[jerrytimes]

True, but it seems the Democrats usually do it to repair the damage Republicans did.

Really?

[Zacha341]

ROTFL! Yep. Then the repubos come in and 'repair' [[) what the demos did..... umm, do [['5 Trillion' and counting for example as they both contiue to kick the can our fiscal solvency down the road).

The dems and repubs have their elite; their special interest groups, tax-payer fundings, and bailouts for high ranking constituents and insiders.

The demmy politicians just like to showcase that they are soooo 'progressive' and benevolently down for the 'peeps'! Thus, above the influence and self-interest of wealth acquisition, corporate and targeted to those at the top of their hierarchies.

True, but it seems the Democrats usually do it to repair the damage Republicans did.

[Zacha341]

Ummm, yeah, I hear you. The reason I tune into politics is because 'politics' - partisan and otherwise - eventually comes to your door step [[pricing, economics, security, freedom, culture, etc.):

Politics, to Policy to PERSONAL!

Partisan politics is boring.

[Zacha341]

Precisely! We tend to take our medicine better when a democrat puts the spoon to our face! Yet get out the torches and pitchforks when the repubs do the same. SMH..... I guess that's the way of it.

Republicans are abusing a clause in the constitution and not enacting with the proper vote counting - True, but she neglects to mention that Democrats did the exact same thing under Grandholm, which is probably why they haven't been complaining about it until very recently [[when it hit the news)...

[Maddow] she only seems to care when bad things happen to Detroit when they are caused by Republicans.