- Joined
- Apr 20, 2005
- Messages
- 30,545
- Reaction score
- 14,776
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
I believe that you can see it.I don't know which one it is either. But governors and presidents has used the threat of vetoes to coerce changes in legislation to include budgets. I can see it now, instead of congress suing over executive orders or executive over reach it brings a suit in court stating the president is trying to coerce the congress into making changes it doesn't want to in the president's official capacity.
I am remembering which one of the posters you are and the odd way you use language.Is that what you think you did? Strange.
The only connection in what he was indicted for, had absolutely nothing to do with any investigating of him.
:dohThe group Perry vetoed the funding has something more than "absolutely nothing to do" with the indictment of Perry.
That's why the indictment and the group are being put together in the same news story.
from the link in the OP
...Perry carried out his veto.
Texas Gov. Rick Perry indicted for alleged abuse of power in veto dispute | Fox News
Perry vetoed the money.
So what is it that you mean when you say that Perry didn't funding the group?
Do you mean that Perry tried and failed?
Or what exactly?
Do you think the Dems will turn to voter supression and shady gerrymandering practices?Texas is ground zero for the Democrats. There is a massive movement to get those electoral votes and the means by which they are obtained isn't important.
I see that the goal post has moved.Perry veto wasn't to shut down the extremely Liberal Travis county DAs office.
There's a drunken TX legislator in this mess as well?This was over a specific legislator who was caught driving under the influence.
Do you think the Dems will turn to voter supression and shady gerrymandering practices?
Do you think the Dems will turn to voter supression and shady gerrymandering practices?
POLITICAL WITCH HUNT
Limberg is a lush who got away with spending significant time in jail and berated officer involved in her arrest and confinement. She was stopped as she pulled out of a liquor store parking lot and had another full quart in her vehicle.
INTEGRITY ......NOT! She should have resigned
You're being disingenuous.
Perry veto wasn't to shut down the extremely Liberal Travis county DAs office.
If that was his intention why did wait this long to do it ?
This was over a specific legislator who was caught driving under the influence.
Perry has the authority to Veto AND announcing his intentions to veto.
Only Democrat Governors shut down State funded investigative groups.
Like Andrew Cuomo for example.
Notice the Libs have kept that to them selves for some reason.
I see that the goal post has moved.
There's a drunken TX legislator in this mess as well?
Is Texas tolerant of drunks or what?
Mary Anne Wiley, Perry's general counsel, predicted Perry ultimately will be cleared of the charges against him - abuse of official capacity and coercion of a public servant.
"The veto in question was made in accordance with the veto authority afforded to every governor under the Texas Constitution," she said.
David L. Botsford, Perry's defense attorney, whose $450-per hour fees are being paid for by state funds, said he was outraged by the action.
"This clearly represents political abuse of the court system and there is no legal basis in this decision," Botsford said in a statement. "Today's action, which violates the separation of powers outlined in the Texas Constitution, is nothing more than an effort to weaken the constitutional authority granted to the office of Texas governor, and sets a dangerous precedent by allowing a grand jury to punish the exercise of a lawful and constitutional authority afforded to the Texas governor."
Perry is going to cut funding for the courts next. Then the prisons. :2razz:
He has the authority to not only Veto spending but to announce that veto.
I believe that you can see it.
Executive approval on legislation losing its value does not seem like a probable or even realistic outcome of this kerfuffle.
That day in court will include motions to dismiss.Perry will get his day in court, like any other Texan.
Then, if convicted, he goes to jail.
:dohWhere it looks like he belongs, based on the available evidence.
Which may be thrown out.
It's up to the judge.
"This clearly represents political abuse of the court system and there is no legal basis in this decision," Botsford said in a statement. "Today's action, which violates the separation of powers outlined in the Texas Constitution, is nothing more than an effort to weaken the constitutional authority granted to the office of Texas governor, and sets a dangerous precedent by allowing a grand jury to punish the exercise of a lawful and constitutional authority afforded to the Texas governor."
This case is idiosyncratic at least because it involves Texas laws. I don't think that we need to presume that the precedent will apply to other states.We will see, the problem is once a precedence is set then it is free for everyone to use.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?