Lieutenant Governor Richard Ravitch

Wow (0.00 / 0)

I'll yield to Dan for further analysis but I think you're spot on here Robert.  This is definitely a rebuke at our awful state constitution and should only increase the calls for a Constitutional Convention.

---

by: BingChester @ Tue Sep 22, 2009 at 15:49:46 PM UTC

The decision is a good one. (0.00 / 0)

First of all, I applaud the court for its sound reasoning; my study of the NY Constitution led me to the same understanding, despite the confident dismissals by some prominent posters here.

Second, I will match anyone with my zeal that the NY Constitution be radically remade and reformed.  However, this provision is about #692 on my list of things in dire need of changing.

---

by: twb @ Tue Sep 22, 2009 at 19:59:23 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I think you nailed the big problem with (0.00 / 0)

"It is a huge rebuke of our state's constitution, however. Having the state's highest court say that Paterson does have the authority to appoint a replacement flies in the face of the constitution."

I need to read the actual rulings, but this feels very strange to me.  I have to wonder whether future constitutions, for which I have some hope, would get more respect, or if it's just a crazy dream.

Oh well.  Ravitch seems okay, but the process that put him there?  Yikes!

---

by: simonstl @ Tue Sep 22, 2009 at 15:50:45 PM UTC

I think a better constitution... (0.00 / 0)

Would be more respected. We all know that the lack of something in the constitution that allowed for filling this vacancy was a flaw. Because of that flaw, you open the flood gates and this was battled in the courts. That's not ideal, in my eyes. But it's better than letting a big flaw be the standard.

---

by: robert.harding @ Tue Sep 22, 2009 at 15:54:42 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Uhmmmmm (0.00 / 0)

I guess the highest court has the ability to both interpret or dismiss the Constitution as it sees fit.

---

by: spcollins90 @ Tue Sep 22, 2009 at 15:51:07 PM UTC

don't jump to conclusions (4.00 / 1)

"It is a huge rebuke of our state's constitution"
- statements like that have no place if you have not read the court's decision. The court held that the constitution gives Temporary President the authority to perform the duties of LG as long as it is vacant. However, the constitution gives the legislature the ability to detail how vacancies should be filled, and according to the public officer's law, the legislature gave the Governor the authority to fill vacancies until the next election. As such, this decision is in compliance with the state constitution.

The court also does a good job at responding to the issue of the precedent of Ward v. Curran, which the Court of Appeals ruled that the current appointment of LG was consistent with the amendments and laws that came after the decision of Ward.  

---

by: stevenman5000 @ Tue Sep 22, 2009 at 16:00:05 PM UTC

I didn't jump to conclusions... (0.00 / 0)

You say "statements like that have no place if you have not read the court's decision."

Funny. I did read the decision. I love the assumption though.

Let's look at your reasoning: The court held the constitution gives president pro tempore the authority to serve as acting LG in the event of a vacant. I agree with that. That's a fact. The constitution gives the legislature the ability to detail how vacancies should be filled and, with the public officer's law, the legislature gives the governor the authority to fill vacancies until the next election.

Your conclusion: This decision is in compliance with the state constitution.

The order of succession in the constitution was how Paterson became governor. Paterson was LG. Due to Spitzer's resignation, he became governor. If we go by what the constitution says, the LG post is not filled until the next election. The president pro tempore serves as acting LG, but doesn't give up his or her role in the Senate.

So now we have what the constitution says and what the highest court rule today: That based on the ability of the governor to fill vacancies, this appointment is legal.

That is why I said this is a rebuke. Because now we have precedent. And the precedent says that if this were to happen again (unless the constitution is amended to make this the rule to live by) the governor would be within his rights to appoint a lieutenant governor no matter what the constitution says about the order of succession.

Thus, because of today's ruling, the whole order of succession is out the window.  

---

by: robert.harding @ Tue Sep 22, 2009 at 17:10:00 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Your reading is incorrect (0.00 / 0)

The court explained how its decision is consistent with the Constitution and the statutes.  It is not a rebuke of the Constitution.  What the Constitution says is not different from the court's decision.  You might have had a different opinion, but the majority of the highest court has ruled.  The decision clarifies how the facts and the law should be applied in this case.  The ruling informs our understanding of the Constitution and the statutes

The order of succession has not been changed. If you think that it has been changed then your understanding of the order of succession was incorrect.  

Note the majority opinion said that the result could be changed by the legislature.  If people are not happy with the analysis the majority determined was correct, then the legislature can change the law to get to a different result - next time.  

---

by: jmcbride @ Tue Sep 22, 2009 at 17:45:23 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I don't think you understand my point... (4.00 / 1)

My point is the following:

I know what the court ruled today. That is not my issue. Everyone keeps repeating to me what I have already read. My issue isn't the majority or minority opinions, nor is it the court's overall decision that reached this point. I am actually supportive of this, but as I said, it doesn't speak well for our state's constitution.

I don't know how anyone can say that the order of succession has not been changed or ignored in this case. The order of succession is pretty clear. Once the lieutenant governor becomes governor, the president pro tempore acts as LG. That's the extent of it.

Now, because of this interpretation, we have essentially given any future case of this two options: You can follow the order of succession and just have the president pro tempore act as LG OR, because of this court's ruling, you can just pick your own based on an interpretation of the public officer's. That's what happened here. You now have two options: the order of succession or the court's interpretation of the ability of the governor to appoint individuals to certain vacancies.

---

by: robert.harding @ Tue Sep 22, 2009 at 18:06:14 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

choose-your-own-adventure government (0.00 / 0)

is the part of this that really has me troubled.  I don't think there are a lot of constitutional questions that are likely to fall back on treating things like the Public Officers Law as a catchall.  

However, this is one of those basic government infrastructure questions where choice shouldn't enter the matter.

---

by: simonstl @ Tue Sep 22, 2009 at 18:15:47 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

It is also possible that the Court recognized that (0.00 / 0)

our dysfunctional Senate was unwilling (or unable) to determine WHO was President Pro Tem  for over a month.  
Paterson waited a full month with no clear answer to "who's in charge here?"    Then he acted, when it was clear that the Senate was not able to act at all in the event of the Governor's absence.  Seems pretty clear that the constitution needs to address such situations, else we'll be back to dueling for control.  

---

by: janed @ Tue Sep 22, 2009 at 19:07:32 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

the point is (0.00 / 0)

the court held that the governor has had that choice since Public Officer's Law §43 was enacted.  It is not something new created  by the court's decision.  

---

by: jmcbride @ Tue Sep 22, 2009 at 20:53:12 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Statement to come (0.00 / 0)

I am reading the court's decision first, and will comment later today.

---

by: Dan Jacoby @ Tue Sep 22, 2009 at 16:21:24 PM UTC