• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Rick Perry Indicted.

Governors and Presidents have the constitutional power to veto legislation funding programs that he/she may not agree with.

Perry didn't veto the funding because he doesn't agree with the agency that was to receive the funding. He wanted one person gone so he vetoed the funding until he got his way. Yes, the legislature could have overridden his veto. But that doesn't change the fact that he used his veto to try and make a personnel change. Unless it's an executive agency personnel issues are none of his business. The person he wanted gone was a Travis County elected official. That's not his call to make, it's up to the voters of Travis County to make that change.

When elected officials do things which embarass the office they hold and are unwilling to resign in disgrace, extraordinary actions are required.

Take it from someone living in Rob Ford's town. The call to wait for the next election and let the voters decide is sometimes not enough and other members of government need to go outside the bounds of normal activity in order to deal with them.
 
Governors and Presidents have the constitutional power to veto legislation funding programs that he/she may not agree with.

Perry didn't veto the funding because he doesn't agree with the agency that was to receive the funding. He wanted one person gone so he vetoed the funding until he got his way. Yes, the legislature could have overridden his veto. But that doesn't change the fact that he used his veto to try and make a personnel change. Unless it's an executive agency personnel issues are none of his business. The person he wanted gone was a Travis County elected official. That's not his call to make, it's up to the voters of Travis County to make that change.

So if he admits that he did not veto funding because the head was not fit, but because his real motive was to shut down the office there is no issue, right? As most on the left think he was using the DUI as an excuse to go after an agency they support, seems like he ought to start confessing his "sinister" motives. He didn't need an excuse, right?
 
So if he admits that he did not veto because the head of it was not fit, but because his real motive was to shut down the office there is no issue, right?

The court probably wouldn't have had an issue if he had said that was his motivation.
 
So if he admits that he did not veto because the head of it was not fit, but because his real motive was to shut down the office there is no issue, right?

The court probably wouldn't have had an issue if he had said that was his motivation.

Actually it was not the court, it was the Travis county grand jury and nut-job prosecutor that had a problem with it.
 
And the prior link provided about procedures to remove a DA:

Sec. 87.013. GENERAL GROUNDS FOR REMOVAL. (a) An officer may be removed for:
(1) incompetency;
(2) official misconduct; or
(3) intoxication on or off duty caused by drinking an alcoholic beverage.
(b) Intoxication is not a ground for removal if it appears at the trial that the intoxication was caused by drinking an alcoholic beverage on the direction and prescription of a licensed physician practicing in this state...

So apparently there were grounds for removal, regardless of what Perry thought of the agency. Moreover, there is nothing in these procedures that preclude the use of veto power to put political pressure on a DA to resign so as to obtain the same result on the same grounds.
 
And the prior link provided about procedures to remove a DA:

Sec. 87.013. GENERAL GROUNDS FOR REMOVAL. (a) An officer may be removed for:
(1) incompetency;
(2) official misconduct; or
(3) intoxication on or off duty caused by drinking an alcoholic beverage.
(b) Intoxication is not a ground for removal if it appears at the trial that the intoxication was caused by drinking an alcoholic beverage on the direction and prescription of a licensed physician practicing in this state...

So apparently there were grounds for removal, regardless of what Perry thought of the agency. Moreover, there is nothing in these procedures that preclude the use of veto power to put political pressure on a DA to resign so as to obtain the same result on the same grounds.

Removing a district attorney is the business of the court, not the governor.

- - - Updated - - -

The court probably wouldn't have had an issue if he had said that was his motivation.

Actually it was not the court, it was the Travis county grand jury and nut-job prosecutor that had a problem with it.

Grand juries and prosecutors aren't part of the judicial process?
 
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/385719/free-rick-perry-rich-lowry

The two counts against Perry are that he “misused government property” and engaged in the “coercion” of a public servant. This makes it sound like he used the $7.5 million of vetoed funds to buy a vacation house and blackmailed Lehmberg into indicting people on his whim.

He, of course, did nothing of the kind. The indictment collapses under the slightest scrutiny. As legal blogger Eugene Volokh points out, of the first count, Texas law requires that the official be in possession of the misused funds. Perry never controlled the funds he vetoed. As for the second count, Volokh points to an appeals-court decision that held that “coercion of a lawful act by a threat of lawful action is protected free expression.”

The Travis County special prosecutor must think he’s witnessing the political equivalent of an episode of The Sopranos every time he hears news that the president of the United States has made a “veto threat.”

It’s hard to believe that anyone thinks that these charges will stand up in court. But that’s not the point. The indictment is an undisguised attempt to wound Perry, to create bad headlines, to distract him. On cue, Texas Democrats absurdly called on Perry to resign. The indictment itself is, in short, a naked abuse of power.

The Travis County district attorney’s office is infamous for this kind of thing. Lehmberg’s predecessor, Ronnie Earle, launched failed prosecutions of Republicans Kay Bailey Hutchison and Tom DeLay. These acts were as blatantly partisan and as audaciously substanceless as the indictment of Rick Perry.

Forget vetoing funding for this office. If there were any justice, it would be shuttered and razed.
 
Sec. 87.013. GENERAL GROUNDS FOR REMOVAL. (a) An officer may be removed for:
(1) incompetency;
(2) official misconduct; or
(3) intoxication on or off duty caused by drinking an alcoholic beverage.
(b) Intoxication is not a ground for removal if it appears at the trial that the intoxication was caused by drinking an alcoholic beverage on the direction and prescription of a licensed physician practicing in this state...

Okay, can I go off-topic a little bit here. Is drinking alcohol, in and of itself, actually a fireable offense for a DA in Texas? I can understand a DWI being grounds for dismissal, but the way that is phrased makes me think just being seen consuming alcohol at all outside of work would be enough. Are Texas DAs expected to be teetotalers or am I misreading this?
 
And the prior link provided about procedures to remove a DA:

So apparently there were grounds for removal, regardless of what Perry thought of the agency. Moreover, there is nothing in these procedures that preclude the use of veto power to put political pressure on a DA to resign so as to obtain the same result on the same grounds.

Removing a district attorney is the business of the court, not the governor.

Removing a law breaking district attorney through political pressure is the business of the governor, not the courts.

- - - Updated - - -

Actually it was not the court, it was the Travis county grand jury and nut-job prosecutor that had a problem with it.

Grand juries and prosecutors aren't part of the judicial process?

Yes they are, but they are not "the courts". "The courts" are (dictionary meaning) "a tribunal presided over by a judge, judges, or a magistrate in civil and criminal cases.". A grand jury is an investigative body of citizens with official duties and powers, but "A grand jury is separate from the courts, which do not preside over its functioning.[1]" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_jury.

Same for prosecutors who use grand juries as handmaidens. It is rare when a grand jury refuses to indict when the prosecutor recommends it.
 
Last edited:
Removing a district attorney is the business of the court, not the governor.

Removing a law breaking district attorney through political pressure is the business of the governor, not the courts.

Not according to Texas law. Aren't we supposed to be a nation of laws?

Why is an imperial governorship ok but not an imperial presidency?
 
Sec. 87.013. GENERAL GROUNDS FOR REMOVAL. (a) An officer may be removed for:
(1) incompetency;
(2) official misconduct; or
(3) intoxication on or off duty caused by drinking an alcoholic beverage.
(b) Intoxication is not a ground for removal if it appears at the trial that the intoxication was caused by drinking an alcoholic beverage on the direction and prescription of a licensed physician practicing in this state...

Okay, can I go off-topic a little bit here. Is drinking alcohol, in and of itself, actually a fireable offense for a DA in Texas? I can understand a DWI being grounds for dismissal, but the way that is phrased makes me think just being seen consuming alcohol at all outside of work would be enough. Are Texas DAs expected to be teetotalers or am I misreading this?

Technically it is grounds. Most public service positions are also covered by a morals requirement, which means an employee may be terminated for "moral turpidtude" or "conduct unbecoming" of the position (in this case, an officer of the court). This can be quite broad, including unethical, immoral or illegal conduct - as well as any behavior outside of social norms. That said, in actual enforcement and case law (which vary state to state) it is usually enforced when the act has a bearing on the actual job (e.g. someone who is caught stealing might steal from his/her employer).
 
ksen said:
Not according to Texas law. Aren't we supposed to be a nation of laws?

Why is an imperial governorship ok but not an imperial presidency?

Please quote the part of Texas law that it is the business of the courts to remove a DA through political pressure (e.g. a veto), or that says the Governor does not have that power.

Also, use of the veto to exert political pressure for legitimate purposes is not an "imperial governorship" any more than the veto by a President for a legit purpose.
 
So, does Perry have the power to fire this DA then? If not, who would be the person doing the firing?

If the former, then he'd have legal grounds to fire her and the ability to do so, so the veto threat would not be necessary since he can just remove her without the need to resort to any kind of hardball measures, so it wouldn't make sense for any of this to be happening. If it's someone else who'd be doing it, then Perry would be well within his rights to use the authority he has to try and get rid of her if the people who's job it would be to do so aren't doing that job.
 
So, does Perry have the power to fire this DA then? If not, who would be the person doing the firing?

If the former, then he'd have legal grounds to fire her and the ability to do so, so the veto threat would not be necessary since he can just remove her without the need to resort to any kind of hardball measures, so it wouldn't make sense for any of this to be happening. If it's someone else who'd be doing it, then Perry would be well within his rights to use the authority he has to try and get rid of her if the people who's job it would be to do so aren't doing that job.

Nobody has the power to fire a DA, not in a conventional sense. And in her case, her office can (with her grand jury) indict anyone they like in the state, for whatever reason. To remove her, the most direct option is to file a petition with the courts for termination for cause, or impeachment.
 
ksen said:
Not according to Texas law. Aren't we supposed to be a nation of laws?

Why is an imperial governorship ok but not an imperial presidency?

Please quote the part of Texas law that it is the business of the courts to remove a DA through political pressure (e.g. a veto),

wat

or that says the Governor does not have that power.

Pretty sure that's not how laws work. Just because a law doesn't say you don't have that power doesn't mean you have that power.

Also, use of the veto to exert political pressure for legitimate purposes is not an "imperial governorship" any more than the veto by a President for a legit purpose.

It's still to be determined if effecting personnel changes are a legitimate purpose of a veto.
 
So, does Perry have the power to fire this DA then? If not, who would be the person doing the firing?

If the former, then he'd have legal grounds to fire her and the ability to do so, so the veto threat would not be necessary since he can just remove her without the need to resort to any kind of hardball measures, so it wouldn't make sense for any of this to be happening. If it's someone else who'd be doing it, then Perry would be well within his rights to use the authority he has to try and get rid of her if the people who's job it would be to do so aren't doing that job.

Nobody has the power to fire a DA, not in a conventional sense. And in her case, her office can (with her grand jury) indict anyone they like in the state, for whatever reason. To remove her, the most direct option is to file a petition with the courts for termination for cause, or impeachment.

OK, I obviously didn't follow the thread closely enough. What happened when Perry filed this petition? It seems that she made a very clear-cut violation which was grounds for her removal under that process.
 
OK, I obviously didn't follow the thread closely enough. What happened when Perry filed this petition? It seems that she made a very clear-cut violation which was grounds for her removal under that process.

Perry filed a petition? If not, he should be impeached for being stupid. The sounds of shovels when snow falls.
 
Please quote the part of Texas law that it is the business of the courts to remove a DA through political pressure (e.g. a veto),

wat

or that says the Governor does not have that power.

Pretty sure that's not how laws work. Just because a law doesn't say you don't have that power doesn't mean you have that power.
Correct, but the Texas Constitution gives the governor the power of veto. If there are circumstances under the law that makes an exception to that power, you need to prove it in the law. If you cannot, case closed.

Also, use of the veto to exert political pressure for legitimate purposes is not an "imperial governorship" any more than the veto by a President for a legit purpose.

It's still to be determined if effecting personnel changes are a legitimate purpose of a veto.
All vetoes are legitimate under the law, until proven otherwise. And until you make an ethical case on why his actions were ethically or morally wrong, you are not convincing.
 
Please quote the part of Texas law that it is the business of the courts to remove a DA through political pressure (e.g. a veto),

wat

Allow me to translate. Ksen is confused by maxparrish's demand that ksen agree with one side of the false dichotomy that maxparrish created, namely that it is the "business" (i.e., the legally prescribed duty) of either the governor or the courts to use political pressure (i.e., not official channels) to force elected officials that they do not like out of office.

ksen likely has the crazed notion that elected officials who do not willingly leave office should only be removed from office by official channels like impeachment, recall vote, or proven criminal activity, rather than by underhanded, secret blackmail or threats to harm the public and fire that person's colleagues by shutting down an entire vital function of the government.
 
Back
Top Bottom