Saturday, June 25, 2011
Procedures matter!!! And the New York Times misleads its readers
The New York Times reports, in a story headlined "Connecticut Budget is Upended as State Workers Reject Deal," on the "rejection" by Connecticut's public employee labor unions of a deal crafted by the Democratic governor that would have, he says, avoided the necessity to lay off 7500 public employees (and throw the state into a renewed recession). So why do I have scare quotes around the word "rejection"? The answer is simple, although one has to go deeply into the story to discover this absolutely vital information:
Since the rules are largely unknown by the general public, I agree the headline was misleading.
But, the public is more aware that in various cases, a body "rejects" something even if a majority agrees. So, a jury "rejects" a guilty verdict even if one juror is the only holdout. Five friends can "reject" seeing a movie, if they settle such things by consensus, and only three want to see it.
The "defensibility" of the procedures must be examined in each case. Though I disagree with Prof. Levinson on the merits in various cases, he is correct to be concerned with ignorance of the assumptions involved.
Joe, as usual, makes a good point: Most people are fully aware that it takes unanimity (in the federal and most state systems) to convict in a criminal trial. That being said, it also takes unanimity to acquit. A hung jury provides the basis for a new trial, should the prosecution want it. I take it that both of us agree that almost no one in the entire US, save for very savvy Connecticut political buffs, know of the peculiar process in Connecticut for ratification of deals with public employees.
The better question is what provision of the CT state constitution permits public employee unions a veto over the state legislature's budget?
With regard to:
" ... because of our indefensible amendment procedures set out by Article V, ... "
I recently attended a Bicentennial Commemoration of Wendell Phillips. Prof. Paul Finkelman in his presentation related Phillips' views of the provisions in the Constitution that made it proslavery. Prof. Finkelman then pointed to certain provisions that Phillips had not referenced, in particular that the mathematics of the Article V amendment process provided the slave states assurance that no amendment could be adopted without their approval to interfere with slavery. So it might be said that Article V is a remnant of slavery.
This is like saying "country rejects the ERA," whereas the correct story is that because of our indefensible amendment procedures set out by Article V, it really doesn't matter if a majority of the population in a majority of the states supports an amendment; it still goes down
Sandy, if you do not believe in a requirement for supermajority approval of the Constitution, why have a constitutional basic law in the first instance when it is no different from majoritarian national legislation?
Perhaps Sandy can respond to our yodeler with his proposal for an Article V governing amendments. It need not be merely a "... majoritarian national legislation ... " by including an involvement of the states, whether majoritarian, super-majoritarian, or some place in between. There would have to be a balancing between majority rule and minority rights to avoid tyranny of either the majority or the minority. Alas, it's not easy.
With regard to Mr. DePalma's question, one can defend an amendment procedure more difficult than passing ordinary legislation without defending Article V, which establishes the US Constitution as the most difficult constitution on the planet to amend. It is instructive, for example, to compare the US Constitution with the 50 state constitutions, all of which are easier to amend (some very easy, some not so easy, but all easier than the US Constituiton). That is what is indefensible. If Mr. DePalma loves the US Constitution so much, would he favor amending the Colorado Constitution and all other state constitutions to make it equal in difficulty to amend. (Though I dare say it would be unconstitutional to give each county, say, an equal voice and thus require that 3/4 of Colorado's counties endorse a given amendment.)
Slightly off topic, but Matt Yglesias addressed an issue near an dear to you today: http://thinkprogress.org/yglesias/2011/06/26/254211/what-a-difference-political-institutions-make/
He didn't carry the argument as far as he should have, but hey.
MY's comments make Silver's article weaker than it already is. Cuomo is praised for getting support of a few Republicans, e.g., but on DADT, Obama did just that. Comments at the NYT article underline various flaws.
And, as to the 60 vote rule, the NY Senate Leader didn't HAVE to bring the matter up to vote either. Even if a majority supported the measure. NY is criticized as a place where "three men in a room" have a lot of power, that is leadership in each legislature and the governor.
I voted for the last CO initiative to make it more difficult than a simple voter majority to amend our CO constitution.
I would also support making the US constitution somewhat easier to amend, while retaining a super majority approval to do so.
I agree with Shag for once that this is a delicate balancing act.
I think it worthy of note that we are actually having a civil discussion about the right way to structure an amendment process. I appreciate Mr. DePalma's last posting.
It remains to be seen if Manchester could take advantage of the home ground and win their fourth UCL trophy or Barca will prevail. Cheap Soccer Shirts|Cheap Soccer Jersey|Cheap Football Shirts|henry 12 arsenal jersey|messi jersey 10 argentina|fabregas jersey arsenal|david villa barcelona youth jersey|benzema soccer jerseys|cristiano ronaldo real madrid jersey|cheap rooney soccer jerseys|kaka soccer jersey|real madrid shirt|new fc barcelona jersey|argentina jersey 2012
Shopping online can save you a lot of time and energy when you're searching for the perfect dog apparel. What's more, the items can be delivered right to your doorstep. A small
shipping fee generally applies, but it's definitely worth the convenience.
Houndmaster Braun, abuser of puppies, needs to die and when he does he drops tera gold loots including the Canine Commander's Breastplate for tanks and the Commanding Bracers for DPS. Meanwhile, with typical Scarlet Crusade logic they've put a pyromaniac wow leveling in charge of the library and so Flameweaver Koegler needs to go. When you break him open like a pinata he drops Mograine's Immaculate Might (DPS 2h mace, classic model) and the DPS oriented Pyretic Legguards.
The man who goes alone can start today; but he who travels with another must wait till that other is ready.Post a Comment
Agen Judi Online Terpercaya