Sharpton to Protest Mich. Emergency Takeover Law

[Zacha341]

Was he even at the march to Snyder's or was here just to announce it then back home he went? I did not see HIM in any of the footage of the protesters once they go there.....

[Locke09]

With attitudes and opinions like this, being that many of you will be the city's future leaders... Detroit is in real trouble!

Race play is never ending ON A BIG SCALE in this city.

It actually makes me worry about the entire nation. An opportunity to debate whether there is legitimate reason to say that the EM law is unconstitutional and the only comments you get deal with race.

The motivation of the individuals involved, on both sides is irrelevant. The past or current actions of the individuals on both sides is irrelevant.

And although I'm sure most will miss this point, when discussing the constitutionality of the EM law in its current form, whether or not the city is truly in debt that it cannot resolve on its own, plagued by corrupt leaders, filled with ignorant citizens who don't know how to vote, etc., etc, etc. is also irrelevant.

The only thing that is relevant is whether or not the law violates the constitution. If it does [[and I am one who has always believed that the revised law does) it needs to be fixed.

I believe it is unconstitutional for two reasons:

1. The state has passed a law that allows an entity to violate the obligations of a contract, for purely financial reasons. Such power belongs to federal bankruptcy courts, not to the state.

2. The EM has the power to dismiss a local elected city clerk [[the person responsible for elections). This is even worse than dismissing a mayor or a council, because this means that a governor can install their own person to oversee elections in a year that the governor is running for reelection. City clerks are elected for a reason, so that they are independent of all other elected officials.

Then I believe there are other problems with the current law:

For instance, there are no checks and balances when one person has authority to fill all of the leadership positions and make all of the decisions. People generally do not make the best decisions when they cannot be challenged and when they themselves have nothing to lose.

But heck, let's just focus on Al Sharpton. Does anyone know whether or not the African-American community approves of his hairstyle?

[De'troiter]

With attitudes and opinions like this, being that many of you will be the city's future leaders... Detroit is in real trouble!

Race play is never ending ON A BIG SCALE in this city.

I agree, advocacy for the concerns of Blacks is still necessary. I also have noticed a rise in the hatred toward Black Oriented Organizations such as Churches, Historically Black Colleges and Universities, NAACP, BET, etc. Many people argue that these establishment are beyond their time, but refuse to acknowledge the reason that these establishments exist in the first place. America treats Blacks the same way Thomas Jefferson treated Sally Hemmings; they exploit their assets, while pretending that they love them, but in reality they do not want them in their presence. Racism may not be as overt as it once was, but it still exists.

[313WX]

It actually makes me worry about the entire nation. An opportunity to debate whether there is legitimate reason to say that the EM law is unconstitutional and the only comments you get deal with race.

The motivation of the individuals involved, on both sides is irrelevant. The past or current actions of the individuals on both sides is irrelevant.

And although I'm sure most will miss this point, when discussing the constitutionality of the EM law in its current form, whether or not the city is truly in debt that it cannot resolve on its own, plagued by corrupt leaders, filled with ignorant citizens who don't know how to vote, etc., etc, etc. is also irrelevant.

The only thing that is relevant is whether or not the law violates the constitution. If it does [[and I am one who has always believed that the revised law does) it needs to be fixed.

I believe it is unconstitutional for two reasons:

1. The state has passed a law that allows an entity to violate the obligations of a contract, for purely financial reasons. Such power belongs to federal bankruptcy courts, not to the state.

2. The EM has the power to dismiss a local elected city clerk [[the person responsible for elections). This is even worse than dismissing a mayor or a council, because this means that a governor can install their own person to oversee elections in a year that the governor is running for reelection. City clerks are elected for a reason, so that they are independent of all other elected officials.

Then I believe there are other problems with the current law:

For instance, there are no checks and balances when one person has authority to fill all of the leadership positions and make all of the decisions. People generally do not make the best decisions when they cannot be challenged and when they themselves have nothing to lose.

But heck, let's just focus on Al Sharpton. Does anyone know whether or not the African-American community approves of his hairstyle?

Great post Locke09.

[Wesley Mouch]

It actually makes me worry about the entire nation. An opportunity to debate whether there is legitimate reason to say that the EM law is unconstitutional and the only comments you get deal with race.

Let's switch to your topic -- but this thread was about Sharpton. Not the EFM.
But I'm really bored w/ Sharpton -- and not a moment too soon.

...And although I'm sure most will miss this point, when discussing the constitutionality of the EM law in its current form, whether or not the city is truly in debt that it cannot resolve on its own, plagued by corrupt leaders, filled with ignorant citizens who don't know how to vote, etc., etc, etc. is also irrelevant.

The only thing that is relevant is whether or not the law violates the constitution. If it does [[and I am one who has always believed that the revised law does) it needs to be fixed.

Yes. Yes. Yes.

I believe it is unconstitutional for two reasons:

1. The state has passed a law that allows an entity to violate the obligations of a contract, for purely financial reasons. Such power belongs to federal bankruptcy courts, not to the state.

Good point.

2. The EM has the power to dismiss a local elected city clerk [[the person responsible for elections). This is even worse than dismissing a mayor or a council, because this means that a governor can install their own person to oversee elections in a year that the governor is running for reelection. City clerks are elected for a reason, so that they are independent of all other elected officials.

Excellent point.

...
For instance, there are no checks and balances when one person has authority to fill all of the leadership positions and make all of the decisions. People generally do not make the best decisions when they cannot be challenged and when they themselves have nothing to lose.

Not bad point, except that there is a check and balance -- the lack of funds. It checks the ability to spend the money. And for balance, well, there can't be too much balance when everything has already been tipped to one end of the scale -- that is no money.

Fun to discuss point by point -- but what I really want to ask you is this...

So if the EFM law is unconstitution for real constitutional reasons [[not just because some people think its a power grab -- who cares about that non-logic), then it suggests that a bankruptcy should then be dealt with by a bankruptcy court -- oh what an idea.

And this of course is NOT what the Unions want, nor the current political leaders. So your argument actually supports my hope that bankruptcy, by a federal judge, is the best possible process -- because the process is not a creation of the political process.

This sounds like a great way to deal with things. All the same things will happen -- except that it will be much worse [[for those who want to keep things floating), and mostly likely very deep and broad.

But heck, let's just focus on Al Sharpton. Does anyone know whether or not the African-American community approves of his hairstyle?

Who cares about him, or the communities opinion of him. He's an idiot. There are important matters here. Thanks for pulling us back to them, Locke.

[MikeyinBrooklyn]

I am in favor of the EM law, but I really need to wonder: if you oppose it, is Al Sharpton really someone you want to have on your side publicly? Both his personal and National Action Network finances have been subject to repeated violations of tax and finance laws. He has had leins put on his personal property by both the IRS and in response to losing a civil lawsuit stemming from his participation in the Tawana Brawley fraud. He may attract a little extra publicity [[mostly for himself, of course), but I would think his participation actually would cause people to be in favor of the law. I wouldn't rally for an ethics law with Richard Nixon as a featured speaker.

[Zacha341]

Interesting point. I've considered that the governor will ultimately grant [[sic) the wish of no EFM and we go the court route straight on to bankruptcy! No pass GO! This of course will be politicized as well... but arguably it is less politically derived. In either case the unions will be dismantled.

And this of course is NOT what the Unions want, nor the current political leaders. So your argument actually supports my hope that bankruptcy, by a federal judge, is the best possible process -- because the process is not a creation of the political process.

[Zacha341]

He's a media seeker and not even part of the march as he originally was slated to be. He illegitimizes most causes and needs to stay out of Detroit! We don't need the added useless drama at this point.

I am in favor of the EM law, but I really need to wonder: if you oppose it, is Al Sharpton really someone you want to have on your side publicly? ....He may attract a little extra publicity [[mostly for himself, of course), but I would think his participation actually would cause people to be in favor of the law.

[Scottathew]

...I believe it is unconstitutional for two reasons:...

WOW, great post. The first LOGICAL, non-emotional arguments I've seen.

You've got the wheels of my mind turning!

[Hermod]

It actually makes me worry about the entire nation. An opportunity to debate whether there is legitimate reason to say that the EM law is unconstitutional and the only comments you get deal with race.

The motivation of the individuals involved, on both sides is irrelevant. The past or current actions of the individuals on both sides is irrelevant.

And although I'm sure most will miss this point, when discussing the constitutionality of the EM law in its current form, whether or not the city is truly in debt that it cannot resolve on its own, plagued by corrupt leaders, filled with ignorant citizens who don't know how to vote, etc., etc, etc. is also irrelevant.

The only thing that is relevant is whether or not the law violates the constitution. If it does [[and I am one who has always believed that the revised law does) it needs to be fixed.

I believe it is unconstitutional for two reasons:

1. The state has passed a law that allows an entity to violate the obligations of a contract, for purely financial reasons. Such power belongs to federal bankruptcy courts, not to the state.

2. The EM has the power to dismiss a local elected city clerk [[the person responsible for elections). This is even worse than dismissing a mayor or a council, because this means that a governor can install their own person to oversee elections in a year that the governor is running for reelection. City clerks are elected for a reason, so that they are independent of all other elected officials.

Then I believe there are other problems with the current law:

For instance, there are no checks and balances when one person has authority to fill all of the leadership positions and make all of the decisions. People generally do not make the best decisions when they cannot be challenged and when they themselves have nothing to lose.

But heck, let's just focus on Al Sharpton. Does anyone know whether or not the African-American community approves of his hairstyle?

I don't know about Michigan, but the state constitution here in Florida allows the governor to suspend any city or county elected official "for cause".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miriam_Oliphant

Check out Miriam Oliphant. She would be just great in Detroit.

[Danny]

It's going to take more than Black Civil Rights Preachers to appeal the EFM law of 2011. Going into Synder, The Nerd's house and tell him to appeal that law is nothing! Snyder is well aware the old 1960s Civil Rights Protests where people march along the old dirt country road to the small towns and big cities signing. "Keep your Eyes of the Prize!" negro spirituals. He wants to get Michigan back on its feet and so will Detroit, Flint, Benton Harbor and Pontiac. If you all Civil Rights Protester want Synder, the Nerd out RECALL HIM! and get a new governor to appeal that stupid EFM 2011 [[ dictatoship) Law.

[Meddle]

I believe it is unconstitutional for two reasons:

1. The state has passed a law that allows an entity to violate the obligations of a contract, for purely financial reasons. Such power belongs to federal bankruptcy courts, not to the state.

2. The EM has the power to dismiss a local elected city clerk [[the person responsible for elections). This is even worse than dismissing a mayor or a council, because this means that a governor can install their own person to oversee elections in a year that the governor is running for reelection. City clerks are elected for a reason, so that they are independent of all other elected officials.

I'm all for anything that will get the corruption and irresponsibility out of town.

A city council president that can't keep his own personal financial affairs in order? Seriously?

[Locke09]

I don't know about Michigan, but the state constitution here in Florida allows the governor to suspend any city or county elected official "for cause".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miriam_Oliphant

Check out Miriam Oliphant. She would be just great in Detroit.

She was removed for cause. A Senate committee had to hold a hearing. The Senate had to vote on her removal. This was not a case of one non-elected official being able to remove an elected official who has nothing to do with a deficit. Nor was the governor able to do so by himself.

[Mark Smiles]

Cities and all local units of government from School Boards to Sewer Boards, are extensions of the State government.

Their leashes are only as long as the State desires.

[Wesley Mouch]

Cities and all local units of government from School Boards to Sewer Boards, are extensions of the State government.

Their leashes are only as long as the State desires.

Few years ago I hear that the amalgamation of cities into 'regional municipalities' in Ontario was possible because cities in Ontario were truly just 'extensions of the' province. And that the forced amalgamation there wouldn't happen here [[MI) because the cities had more legal independence.

Anyone know more about this? Can Lansing just wipe cities off the map if they so desire? Or do they have separate legal rights from the State?

[Locke09]

Cities and all local units of government from School Boards to Sewer Boards, are extensions of the State government.

Their leashes are only as long as the State desires.

I’m exhaling heavily because I get greatly exasperated when someone says something just because it sounds good, strong and authoritative - accuracy and truth be damned!

Please check the Michigan Home Rule Act of 1909. Michigan cities are incorporated and have the power to establish their own charters. This means they are not simply viewed as administrative extensions of the state. Michigan, by its own constitution, is restricted in the way it interacts with its cities. It cannot simply dissolve or un-incorporate a city or merge cities, etc. The intent of the Home Rule Act is that cities in Michigan would not exist at the pleasure or whim of the state.

Now the state can certainly make things difficult for a city that is not behaving as the state wants it to. And of course, as we have seen in Michigan, politicians believe they can just pass a new law or Act and no one will challenge it. They slipped a little line in the Home Rule Act to allow for Emergency Financial Managers to “exercise the authorities and responsibilities provide in the Home Rule Act.” Not sure if they updated it to allow for the new and improved Emergency Manager. If it still says Emergency Financial manager [[and I think it does), that can be a problem in and of itself.

Now, if the Home Rule Act says that a city can establish a charter and that charter has to be approved by voters, can an EM do something that violates the charter without getting the charter revised and approved by the voters? Doesn’t the EM still have to abide by how the Home Rule Act says a city will govern itself? Those are the things a court can decide and this new fiscal responsibility act should end up in court. The original fiscal responsibility act did not have the same problematic provisions that the new one seems to have – in my opinion.

[JBMcB]

1. The state has passed a law that allows an entity to violate the obligations of a contract, for purely financial reasons. Such power belongs to federal bankruptcy courts, not to the state.

You may have a point here - however, the constitution merely enables congress to pass laws regulating bankruptcy. If the congress is OK with powers granted to an EFM, it's de facto constitutional.

2. The EM has the power to dismiss a local elected city clerk [[the person responsible for elections). This is even worse than dismissing a mayor or a council, because this means that a governor can install their own person to oversee elections in a year that the governor is running for reelection. City clerks are elected for a reason, so that they are independent of all other elected officials.

The constitution says the states can manage elections in any fashion they wish. As long as fraud isn't involved, the states can do just about anything they like when running an election.

[Wesley Mouch]

I’m exhaling heavily because I get greatly exasperated when someone says something just because it sounds good, strong and authoritative - accuracy and truth be damned!

Please check the Michigan Home Rule Act of 1909. Michigan cities are incorporated and have the power to establish their own charters. This means they are not simply viewed as administrative extensions of the state. Michigan, by its own constitution, is restricted in the way it interacts with its cities. It cannot simply dissolve or un-incorporate a city or merge cities, etc. The intent of the Home Rule Act is that cities in Michigan would not exist at the pleasure or whim of the state.

Now the state can certainly make things difficult for a city that is not behaving as the state wants it to. ...<snip>

That's what I thought. Thanks for clarification.

I've changed my position. I'm against the EFM now -- and for bankruptcy!

[[Is that OK, Al?)

[vetalalumni]

Was he even at the march to Snyder's or was here just to announce it then back home he went? I did not see HIM in any of the footage of the protesters once they go there.....

Apparently the Reverend Al Sharpton was in Detroit on Sunday January 15 - the day before the march. The press conference was held at The Historic King Solomon Baptist Church in Detroit on Sunday. The reverend hosted his regular live show on MSNBC on Monday in NYC, the day of the march.

[Locke09]

That's what I thought. Thanks for clarification.

I've changed my position. I'm against the EFM now -- and for bankruptcy!

[[Is that OK, Al?)

I trust the federal government more than the state government. I trust the courts more than any branch of government.