A Tale of Two Governors: Wisconsin’s Walker and Carolina’s Purdue

Posted on June 7, 2011 | 5 Comments

In Wisconsin, a properly elected Senate passed a bill that a properly elected State Assembly had also passed.  Then, a properly elected Governor signed said properly passed bill into law.

The reaction from the far left at the time:

They are showing that citizenship is rooted in the willingness to listen to one’s opponents and to find shared solutions. The governor’s refusal to do the same shows his aim to rule by executive fiat. He is setting himself up as a notorious adversary of the democratic process.

I love it.  Rule by fiat.  Hardly.  Walker signed a bill into law that was passed by the Senate AND the Assembly.  Adversary of the democratic process?  Hardly.  It’s just that in this case, democracy delivered a solution that doesn’t agree with the hard left wing segment of the Democrat party.

Now, here in Carolina.

A properly elected Senate passes a bill that was also passed by a properly elected House.  Then, a properly elected Governor vetoes the bill.

Said governor complains that life isn’t fair.

Said Governor then signs an executive order to get what she wanted the whole time:

RALEIGH, N.C. — Gov. Bev Perdue signed an executive order Friday to extend federal unemployment insurance benefits for thousands of North Carolina residents amid a battle with Republican lawmakers, who tied the extension to the state budget bill.

In April, the Republican majority in the General Assembly passed a bill to extend the federally funded benefits for up to 20 weeks…

The liberal hard left?

Perdue’s press secretary Chris Mackey said the governor gave “Republican leaders the chance to do the right thing and they didn’t. So, she found another solution.”

So, the lesson here, is that when “the right thing” and “other solutions” involve those things held most dear to the Leftist, fiat [using the right definition of the word] is fine; noble.

But, BUT, when a centrist republican follows the rule of law and signs a legally passed bill, he is called a ruler by fiat [using the Leftist’s version of the word].

Funny world, that.

This entry was posted in Government, Politics: National, States Behaving Badly and tagged , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

5 responses to “A Tale of Two Governors: Wisconsin’s Walker and Carolina’s Purdue”

  1. David @ I Love My Gov | June 7, 2011 at 9:38 am | Reply

    Don’t forget the Democratic legislators fled Wisconsin to avoid the legislative process. They were touted as heroes.

    • pino | June 7, 2011 at 2:35 pm | Reply

      Don’t forget the Democratic legislators fled Wisconsin to avoid the legislative process. They were touted as heroes.

      How could I forget?

      The Leftists rejoice when publicly elected leaders flee the state in order to prevent the people’s business from being done. Yet somehow THAT isn’t called rule by “fiat”.

      Strange strange world to be sure.

  2. dedc79 | June 7, 2011 at 7:11 pm | Reply

    You’ve left basically every significant detail out of your post. Most importantly, a wisconsin court has concluded the wisconsin bill was not passed under proper Wisconsin procedure. Those procedures were avoided in order to force the bill through to passage.

    From the Christian science monitor: “The judge’s 33-page decision, issued Thursday, said that Republican lawmakers violated the state’s open-meeting law in their effort to push through the legislation March 9.

    Dane County Circuit Court Judge Maryann Sumi stressed that her decision was based on the evidence of key procedural errors made during the bill’s passage. Those errors, she said, included failing to leave every door of the statehouse open and to provide 24-hour notice that the Legislature was in open session.”

    • pino | June 7, 2011 at 10:05 pm | Reply

      You’ve left basically every significant detail out of your post.

      I’ve left out one detail.* Which is a liberal judge declared that an open-meeting requirement wasn’t followed. The purpose of which, of course, is to allow the public the opportunity to know what’s going on. The idea that the public had no idea what was going on is an absolutely ridiculous claim. With that said, I’m not a lawyer and haven’t seen the language of the law itself,** but there are debates as to whether or not the law was broken; we’ll see I guess.

      The judge herself has said that the law will stand if the State posts the meeting and votes again.

      The larger point of the post is that:

      1. Bills were voted on and passed.
      2. Bills were signed into laws.

      In Carolina:

      1. Bills were passed.
      2. Vetoes written
      3. Executive orders were written with the verbiage that Republicans were offered the chance to do the right thing. The right thing, being defined by the Democrat governor.

      * I didn’t include the point the the properly elected DEMOCRAT lawmakers fled the state abandoning their posts and betraying the voters. A bill came up for vote that they didn’t like and they left. They ran for office and more of them lost than won. Vote at the call of the roll.

      Failure to do so is more of a “rule by fiat” than a governor signing a bill into law.

      I did just now read the law.

      Here are the two applicable clauses which are at play. Note, they are in reverse order as they appear in the language:

      3. Time of notice
      The provision in Wis. Stat. § 19.84(3) requires that every public notice of a meeting be given at least
      twenty-four hours in advance of the meeting, unless “for good cause” such notice is “impossible or impractical.” If “good cause” exists, the notice should be given as soon as possible and must be given at least two hours in advance of the meeting. Wis. Stat. § 19.84(3).
      No Wisconsin court decisions or Attorney General opinions discuss what constitutes “good cause” to
      provide less than twenty-four-hour notice of a meeting. This provision, like all other provisions of the open
      meetings law, must be construed in favor of providing the public with the fullest and most complete information about governmental affairs as is compatible with the conduct of governmental business. Wis. Stat. § 19.81(1) and (4). If there is any doubt whether “good cause” exists, the governmental body should provide the full twenty-four-hour notice.

      The second:

      d. State Legislature
      Generally speaking, the open meetings law applies to the state Legislature, including the senate, assembly and any committees or subunits of those bodies. Wis. Stat. § 19.87. The law does not apply to any partisan caucus of the senate or assembly. Wis. Stat. § 19.87(3). The open meetings law also does not apply where it conflicts with a rule of the Legislature, senate or assembly. Wis. Stat. § 19.87(2). Additional restrictions are set forth in Wis. Stat. § 19.87.

      That section “D” is applicable due to:

      In special session, under Senate Rule 93, no advance notice is required other than posting on the legislative bulletin board. Despite this rule, it was decided to provide a 2 hour notice by posting on the bulletin board.

      The State law doesn’t apply when it conflicts with rules of the senate. The rule of the senate states no advance notice is required. However, they DID provide 2 hours notice just ’cause.

      I’m pretty bias due to the fact that I am massively anti-union and lean right. However, it seems a stretch to construe that they violated the Open Meetings Law.

    • pino | June 14, 2011 at 11:40 pm | Reply

      Dane County Circuit Court Judge Maryann Sumi stressed that her decision was based on the evidence of key procedural errors made during the bill’s passage.

      So, who is wrong?

      Sumi or the Supreme Court?

Leave a Reply