• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Gov. Rick Perry indicted for abuse of power for carrying out threat [W:613/629]

Re: Gov. Rick Perry indicted for abuse of power for carrying out threat to veto prose

The Mark said:
Are you seriously claiming that demanding her resignation backed up by the threat of vetoing funding for a program in her department is not interfering?

Assuming that happened, at least, I'm unsure if it has been proven yet.
Click to expand...

Well, we can assume it happened since it's in the indictment, naturally facts need to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, but on a motion to dismiss, it's those facts. Assume it's true, it's simply legal, basic separation of powers and checks and balances. In Perry's judgment, funding that Public Integrity Unit with her in charge wasn't wise. That's his call and his alone to make.

The redress could've been an action seeking a writ to compel the bill to be signed into law (let that sink or swim on its merits). Instead, we get a criminal complaint? It's ridiculous, it really is and bottom line he can sign anything he wants into law, for any reason, or not.....that's up to him. If one doesn't like it, the legislature can override the veto or proceed to remove him through whatever lawful means the TX Constitution might provide.....but to suggest it rises to the level of criminality is really frivolous.
 
Re: Gov. Rick Perry indicted for abuse of power for carrying out threat to veto prose

The Mark said:
Are you seriously claiming that demanding her resignation backed up by the threat of vetoing funding for a program in her department is not interfering?

Assuming that happened, at least, I'm unsure if it has been proven yet.
Click to expand...
He is allowed to veto, and he is allowed to demand someone resign who should. And he is allowed to state that is the reason for his veto.
It in no way interferes with anything she is doing. It doesn't prevent her from doing what ever she is doing.
 
Last edited:
Re: Gov. Rick Perry indicted for abuse of power for carrying out threat to veto prose

Jetboogieman said:
I've taken a more cautious approach.

Naturally for many this will be cut down partisan lines no matter what happens.

But there's just so much noise around this whole thing we just have to wait and see what happens.
Click to expand...

For the population? Yes, but the liberal lawyers aren't going to go for this.
 
Re: Gov. Rick Perry indicted for abuse of power for carrying out threat to veto prose

Excon said:
HE is allowed to veto, and he is allowed to demand someone resign who should. And he is allowed to state that is the reason for his veto.
It in no way interferes with anything she is doing.
Click to expand...

I agree. But the use of the word interference becomes semantic. I'd simply suggest he's simply allowed to interfere in that manner since that interference contemplates the use of a constitutional powers that are his to utilize in his sole political judgment.
 
Re: Gov. Rick Perry indicted for abuse of power for carrying out threat to veto prose

Not all partisans are knee-jerking this, though, including several on this thread. Here's what one liberal, Jonathan Chait, has to say:

The theory behind the indictment is flexible enough that almost any kind of political conflict could be defined as a “misuse” of power or “coercion” of one’s opponents. To describe the indictment as “frivolous” gives it far more credence than it deserves. Perry may not be much smarter than a ham sandwich, but he is exactly as guilty as one. Rick Perry Indictment Is Unbelievably Ridiculous -- NYMag
 
Re: Gov. Rick Perry indicted for abuse of power for carrying out threat to veto prose

Conservative said:
Wrong, any bill that is vetoed can be overturned by the Legislature. Sorry, but the Governor can veto any bill for any reason. Want to bet on the outcome in the Courts?
Click to expand...

Except the reasons for vetoing are pretty narrow. And the fact that Perry has opposed this bill for personal reasons and not legislative reasons is enough. This is no different than him saying, I won't sign this bill unless it's voted in by men only. Again, Perry opened his mouth and decided to veto a bill for reasons which had nothing to do with politics.
 
Last edited:
Re: Gov. Rick Perry indicted for abuse of power for carrying out threat to veto prose

Conservative said:
The Travis County DA is run by the Democrat Party, and they get their funding from the state of TX. [...]
Click to expand...
Delusional statement.
 
Re: Gov. Rick Perry indicted for abuse of power for carrying out threat to veto prose

Hatuey said:
Except the reasons for vetoing are pretty narrow..
Click to expand...

No, they're not. The reasons for vetoing are limitless and solely up to the Governor. He can veto things for bad reasons or even untrue reasons. That's what a political question is, his decision is checked by the power of the legislature to override the veto and any other non criminal removal proceeding that may exist in TX (I don't know if they have recall there)
 
Re: Gov. Rick Perry indicted for abuse of power for carrying out threat to veto prose

The Mark said:
Are you seriously claiming that demanding her resignation backed up by the threat of vetoing funding for a program in her department is not interfering? [...]
Click to expand...
Yes, they are, but that is to be expected. Denial of reality is the basic conservative position these days.
 
Re: Gov. Rick Perry indicted for abuse of power for carrying out threat to veto prose

Veto threats are legal, Karl.
 
Re: Gov. Rick Perry indicted for abuse of power for carrying out threat to veto prose

CanadaJohn said:
1. It wouldn't be like that, because at the federal level, the executive manipulates the judiciary. You can technically claim otherwise, but practically speaking, it's self-evident.
Click to expand...

Oh, you mean the facts back me up? Well. Alright. The facts back me up. This is no different than Obama vetoing any bill until all Republicans resign. Not only is it unethical, it's downright tyrannical. Would you be in favor of a Democrat governor using his vetoing power to get officials to resign? Doubt it. So yeah, I'm not in favor of this whether it's a Republican/Democrat doing it. It's nonsensical. If you're going to veto funding for a department, do it on the grounds that it's wasteful. Not on the grounds that you want person X to resign.
 
Re: Gov. Rick Perry indicted for abuse of power for carrying out threat to veto prose

newpublius said:
No, they're not. The reasons for vetoing are limitless and solely up to the Governor.
Click to expand...

Really? Show us the list of reasons and precedent.

Presidential Vetoes | US House of Representatives: History, Art & Archives

Article I, section 7 of the Constitution grants the President the authority to veto legislation passed by Congress. This authority is one of the most significant tools in the President can employ to prevent the passage of legislation. Even the threat of a veto can bring about changes in the content of legislation long before the bill is ever presented to the President. The Constitution provides the President 10 days (excluding Sundays) to act on legislation or the legislation automatically becomes law. There are two types of vetoes: the “regular veto” and the “pocket veto.”
Click to expand...

Here are Perry's latest veto statements:

Office of the Governor Rick Perry - Veto Statements

Relating to eligibility to serve as an interpreter in an election. Author: Ellis; Sponsor: Johnson
Click to expand...
Relating to the prevention of truancy and the offense of failure to attend school. Author: Whitmire; Sponsor: Pric
Click to expand...
Relating to the dismissal or nonsuit of a suit to terminate the parent-child relationship filed by the Department of Family and Protective Services. Author: Nelson; Sponsor: Raymond
Click to expand...

Veto power is meant for legislative reasons. Not personal grudges. That's tyranny.
 
Re: Gov. Rick Perry indicted for abuse of power for carrying out threat to veto prose

Hatuey said:
Oh, you mean the facts back me up? Well. Alright. The facts back me up. This is no different than Obama vetoing any bill until all Republicans resign. Not only is it unethical, it's downright tyrannical. Would you be in favor of a Democrat governor using his vetoing power to get officials to resign? Doubt it. So yeah, I'm not in favor of this whether it's a Republican/Democrat doing it. It's nonsensical. If you're going to veto funding for a department, do it on the grounds that it's wasteful. Not on the grounds that you want person X to resign.
Click to expand...

Obama could do that, the fact it's unwise is beside the point. Nothing compels Obama to sign anything into law and if he wants to he can sit on his ass and do nothing and your political remedy is to override his veto. In this case, Perry wants to deprive funding to an agency that this woman runs and so has acted politically to ensure that this unit gets no funding. I'm sorry, but he actually DOES get to do that, basic separation of powers and checks and balances. In Perry's judgment allowing the Public Integrity a unit to be funded with this woman in charge isn't a wise decision, and frankly the bottom line is that it actually IS his decision.
 
Re: Gov. Rick Perry indicted for abuse of power for carrying out threat to veto prose

newpublius said:
Obama could do that
Click to expand...

He can, if he wants an ethics committee doing an investigation on him. What you're arguing in favor of is executive tyranny. A president doesn't like X person in the other party? Veto any bill until they resign. That's not a democracy or a republic. It's tyranny.
 
Re: Gov. Rick Perry indicted for abuse of power for carrying out threat to veto prose

Hatuey said:
Veto power is meant for legislative reasons. Not personal grudges. That's tyranny.
Click to expand...

That's a great 'equitable' argument. It's not a constitutional argument. Fact is the veto power isn't qualified, the reason is simple, it's because somebody somewhere will obviously think it's a misuse of the person's veto power. Perry possesses an unqualified and unconditional power to veto any TX legislation, for any reason. That reason is subject to our review POLITICALLY, but criminally? Uh, no.....and again, my point about goi to court to get a writ is really quite pertinent......
 
Re: Gov. Rick Perry indicted for abuse of power for carrying out threat to veto prose

newpublius said:
That's a great 'equitable' argument. It's not a constitutional argument.
Click to expand...

And yet... the precedent is set in stone. Veto power has never been used for personal grudges. It has been used to modify legislation. The courts will rule accordingly. Personal grudges can't be used as an argument for vetoing. A court that rules in favor of this would essentially be setting the groundwork for executive tyranny. :shrug:
 
Re: Gov. Rick Perry indicted for abuse of power for carrying out threat to veto prose

Hatuey said:
He can, if he wants an ethics committee doing an investigation on him. What you're arguing in favor of is executive tyranny. A president doesn't like X person in the other party? Veto any bill until they resign. That's not a democracy or a republic. It's tyranny.
Click to expand...

If he took money, fine, but if not, he could say he's not signing **** until they commit suicide. There's NO qualification to the use of the power. Nothing, in law, compels the executive to sign anything into law. I'm not arguing in favor of 'executive tyranny' I'm noting that separation of powers actually does vest unilateral authority to act in the executive branch.

Nothing prevents a legislature from passing bad laws (constitutional challenges happen after of course), even bad laws become laws, you don't call that a legislative tyranny.
 
Re: Gov. Rick Perry indicted for abuse of power for carrying out threat to veto prose

Hatuey said:
And yet... the precedent is set in stone. Veto power has never been used for personal grudges. It has been used to modify legislation. The courts will rule accordingly. Personal grudges can't be used as an argument for vetoing. A court that rules in favor of this would essentially be setting the groundwork for executive tyranny. :shrug:
Click to expand...

He doesn't need ANY argument to utilize the veto.
 
Re: Gov. Rick Perry indicted for abuse of power for carrying out threat to veto prose

newpublius said:
If he took money, fine, but if not, he could say he's not signing **** until they commit suicide. There's NO qualification to the use of the power.
Click to expand...

And yet precedent is pretty much the only thing that matters in US politics. There is no precedent for veto power being used for personal differences. That woman did nothing which is relevant to the legislation in question. Perry's vetoing is solely based on the fact that he wants her to step down. The veto has absolutely nothing to do with the legislation itself. He himself admitted to that. There is not a single court that will rule in his favor on this one. It would not only set a terrible precedent, it would allow for executive tyranny.
 
Re: Gov. Rick Perry indicted for abuse of power for carrying out threat to veto prose

newpublius said:
He doesn't need ANY argument to utilize the veto.
Click to expand...

Actually, considering the veto power is used to modify legislation, he does indeed. Just admit it, Perry opened his mouth and that's what did him in. Instead of arguing that he was vetoing this because he didn't feel the legislation was right, he said he wouldn't do it unless someone quit. That's not only unethical, it's downright tyrannical.
 
Re: Gov. Rick Perry indicted for abuse of power for carrying out threat to veto prose

The point you're missing is that any reason is constitutionally permissible, including personal grudges. The precedent is that the Executive Branch possesses the power to either sign something into law or not....there's NO qualification to that, constitutionally. Politically there can be consequences of course, but the power is vested, it is his power to utilize.
 
Re: Gov. Rick Perry indicted for abuse of power for carrying out threat to veto prose

Hatuey said:
Actually, considering the veto power is used to modify legislation, he does indeed. Just admit it, Perry opened his mouth and that's what did him in. Instead of arguing that he was vetoing this because he didn't feel the legislation was right, he said he wouldn't do it unless someone quit. That's not only unethical, it's downright tyrannical.
Click to expand...

The pretext of a DWI conviction for a person in charge of a Public Integrity Unit, hate to tell you, but the equitable rub really isn't against the Governor. The point is that he didn't feel the legislation was right because it funded a unit, not that the unit itself was a bad idea, but that the unit RUN BY THIS PARTICULAR INDIVIDUAL was a bad idea and that's perfectly permissible.

Veto threats are LEGAL.
 
Re: Gov. Rick Perry indicted for abuse of power for carrying out threat to veto prose

newpublius said:
The point you're missing is that any reason is constitutionally permissible
Click to expand...

Is it now?

Texas Politics - The Executive Branch

The state Constitution gives the Governor ten days after receiving a bill to either sign it or veto it. Signing the bill passes it into law, vetoing it returns it to the Legislature with a veto message explaining the governor's reasons for rejecting the measure. If the Legislature is in session at the time of the veto, legislators may attempt to reverse the veto or perhaps pass modified legislation that responds to the governor's objections. If the legislative session ends within ten days of the governor's receipt of any legislation, however, the Governor has another twenty days from adjournment to act on any such pending bills. Because there is typically a last-minute rush to pass legislation, the Governor frequently receives most bills within the last ten days of the session. This provides governors not only with extra time to consider bills but also creates a powerful advantage. If the Legislature is out of session, it cannot meet to vote on overrides, so any vetoes the Governor casts after the end of the session will be final.
Click to expand...


The political limitations upon the veto power are subtler and have in many cases shaped governors' political fortunes. While vetoes can seem like an authoritative exercise of power - a bid to demonstrate decisive leadership - they may also be viewed as a sign of a governor's difficulty or even failure to deal effectively with legislators. Thus, the veto needs to be used strategically. Legislators who work long and hard on legislation may feel blindsided and less likely to cooperate in the future when a governor vetoes their legislation - particularly if the governor has not effectively communicated his or her priorities on legislation. Legislators may feel set up and ambushed by a governor who remains aloof during the session then vetoes a large amount of legislation.
Click to expand...

Even Texans seem to agree that vetoing power is limited to reasons which modify the legislation itself. An executive trying to modify an agency of government through lack of funding? Nonsense. He's not only being unethical, he's being tyrannical.
 
Re: Gov. Rick Perry indicted for abuse of power for carrying out threat to veto prose

nota bene said:
Links please.
Click to expand...

Typical conservative. Doesn't even know their own candidate.


Rick Perry: The Democrat Years | The Texas Tribune


If only we could all be snake oil salesmen eh?


Another political move Perry made back then: He was a top Texas supporter and organizer in 1988 for Al Gore, who ran as a southern conservative rather than the populist reformer he eventually became as the 2000 Democratic presidential nominee.
 
What say ye who have decided that Perry is wrongly charged?

Eighty pages and 800 posts and hardly a one wants to discuss the indictment?

What say ye who have decided that Perry is wrongly charged?

Are we saying that the Texas laws in question apply to the governor; however, Perry did not perform acts which match the specifics of the crimes detailed in the laws?

​
~OR~
​
​

Are we saying that Perry did perform acts which match the specifics of the Texas laws in question; however, it's not a crime when the Governor does it?
​


What say ye?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom