Wisconsin Republicans Pass Bills to Limit Powers of Incoming Democrat Governor, Attorney General
Republicans held onto majorities in the legislature.
Wisconsin Republicans passed legislation early Wednesday morning that will limit the powers of the incoming Democrat Governor Tony Evers and Attorney General. From The New York Times:
The package of bills, which now awaits Mr. Walker’s signature, would limit early voting and, for the coming months, give lawmakers, not the governor, the majority of appointments on an economic development board. They also prevent Mr. Evers from banning guns in the Wisconsin Capitol without permission from legislators.
The bills would also require Mr. Evers to get permission from lawmakers to seek adjustments on programs run jointly by federal and state governments, such as public benefit programs.
And they would bar Mr. Evers from installing any political appointee whose confirmation is rejected by the Senate. (Current law allows a governor to renominate such appointees or allow them to serve as a provisional appointment.) The measures also include a provision requiring the corrections department, at lawmakers’ request, to publish online the names of prisoners pardoned by the governor or released before finishing their sentences.
“It provides more opportunity for oversight for a coequal branch of government,” Romaine Quinn, a Republican state representative, said of the measures.
The Democrats have called this a power grab and it goes against the will of the people. They seem to forget that the Republicans still hold the majorities in the state’s legislature, which is where more power will end up after Walker signs them into law:
On state legal matters, the package of bills shifts more authority to lawmakers that would ordinarily be held by the state attorney general. A Democrat, Josh Kaul, was elected attorney general in November to replace the outgoing Republican.
Under the newly passed measures, the attorney general would need lawmakers’ approval to settle certain suits. Also, the measures would allow legislative leaders to intervene and hire their own lawyers — in addition to the attorney general — if the constitutionality of a law were being challenged. Under the new bills, the attorney general could no longer appoint a solicitor general to represent the state in major lawsuits, and would be restricted in how he spent settlement money, which lawmakers would now oversee.
My only question is why didn’t the Republicans have a problem with too much power going through the executive with Scott Walker at the helm? Oh that’s right. Scott Walker is a Republican.
The fact is you shouldn’t be okay with too much power in the executive branch no matter who occupies that office. This does make the GOP come off as sore losers and their actions as a power grab.
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
Wisconsin should now declare the State to be a 2nd Amendment Sanctuary State where no State agency will support or help the Communist when they try to disarm women and minorities in Wisconsin.
Also, they should allow the unfettered manufacture and sale of all semi handguns and rifles that are made IN Wisconsin and sold IN Wisconsin to Citizens of Wisconsin…..(you are a citizen of the STATE you are born into…did you know that)?
The Corporation, referred to as the United States, does not issue you your Birth Certificate, since you are born into your STATE…very interesting discussion, that one is…You become a “subject” or “citizen” of said Corporation when you get your SS number…..
Good grief. Where do people get such garbage?
No, citizenship has nothing to do with the state where you are born. If you were born or naturalized in the USA, and are subject to USA law, then you are automatically a citizen of the USA and of the state where you live. Not the state where you were born, and your US citizenship has nothing to do with social security.
And it makes no difference whether an individual gun has ever crossed a state boundary; under Wickard it is subject to federal law since it is part of the market for guns, which is national. And even without Wickard Congress would have the power to regulate guns under the second militia clause.
What second militia clause are you referring to that empowers firearms regulations?
The one that comes directly after the first.
Where does Congress get its powers?
There is no clause in the 2nd that allows federal regulation. The prefatory militia clause is not a wide open gateway to regulation.
A rational (meaning not contaminated by decades of leftist decisions) justification for regulation of the right to bear arms would be the same ones used to justify limitations to free speech–compelling government interest and firearm ownership that somehow violates the legal rights of others.
What are you on about? The second militia clause is not prefatory. It is an operative clause just like the interstate commerce clause.
Not accurate.
The problem with viewing the militia clause of the 2nd as being in anyway operational, where the federal government is concerned is that, if it allows the federal government to regulate firearms and other weapons [infringe upon the right to keep and bear arms] then it is in direct conflict with the second part of the Amendment which clearly states that the federal government may NOT infringe upon the right to keep [own] and bear [carry or possess] weapons. And, as the wording of the second part of the Amendment is crystal clear and unambiguous, this strongly suggests that the militia clause was NOT intended to be operational. And, the commerce clause can not allow the federal government to restrict the ownership or possession of firearms and other weapons because to do so would place it in direct conflict with the 2nd Amendment and as the 2nd AMENDS the original constitution, this means that the 2nd is superior to the commerce clause.
Good grief. Why are you going on about the second amendment? Who mentioned it, and how is it relevant? What are we discussing here? Congress’s powers. Does the 2nd amendment grant Congress any powers? No, it does not. So why would you think of discussing it?
Now go back and read what I actually wrote, not what you imagined I wrote. The meaning should be obvious, once you get rid of your preconception.
Channeling Rags today, are we?
YOU were the one engaged n a discussion of the 2nd Amendment. In that discussion you made certain statement. I pointed out that your position was not accurate and explained why it was not accurate. Now, you can either present argument which supports your statement or you can do what I do, when I realize that I am mistaken, admit it and move on.
So, would you like to attempt to argue in support of your statement, or not?
The fact is without these limitations Democrats would run riot!
The reason limitations like this werent required when Walker was in office was simply becsuse he, unlike Democrats, has a respect fir law and fucking order!!
Finally, some sign of life from Republicans, even if not at federal level.
I don’t see a problem here. As long as the state constitution assigns the power to do these things to the legislature, it’s not a power grab. Full steam ahead.
How long before the libs find a Hawaiian judge to overrule everything?
In Wisconsin?
Yes, bloody Wisconsin. It’s a silly joke. Good grief.
You’ve sucked the air out of the room. again.
Two words: John Doe
Ding. Ding! DING! We have a winnah!
And as such, I’m OK with the WI legislature’s legislation.
We are having one Flight 93 election after another, in case the writer of the post doesn’t understand that.
Grab every bit of power you can, and don’t look back.
As far as limiting early voting, 100% in favor of that.
Too bad Motor Voter is federal and they can’t get rid of it.
Hoping most of Wisconsin’s democrats are having heart attacks which would require weeks if not months of hospitalization having to use obamacare for their insurance. The ones with the billion dollar deductibles.
a judge will stop all this.
Not if the legislation is within their authority. “Sour grapes” is not a valid legal objection to their actions.
Nope. Last I checked the WI Supreme Court has a solid R majority.
Justice Roberts assures us that there are no ‘R’ or ‘D’ judges so…
On the federal courts, maybe; though there are certainly “0bama judges”, no matter who appointed them, I’m willing to believe that they’re a small minority. But on the Wisconsin Supreme Court there are definitely R and D judges, who make no effort to hide their partisanship.
drawpic (x, y : int, buffer : array 1 .. * of int, picmode : int)
We’re taking Milhouse offline to tune the Turing predictive ai test code. The most simple things trip it up!
Remember when candidate Donald Trump said he’d challenge the results of the election if he lost, and the Dems called that “un-American”? And remember when the Dems reacted to his win with the continous challenge to his election and “illegitimate” presidency with “the Resistance,” and they called that “patriotic”?
I guess “resistance” is once again “un-American.”
The Democrats have called this a power grab and it goes against the will of the people.
Not hardly. The will of the people is best expressed by the elected Legislature. The Governor is the Executive branch – his job is to see that existing laws are enforced, not to make up new ones. Once signed by Governor Walker, the new bills will properly bind the new governor until the Legislature sees fit to change them.
Because they trusted him.
Nobody disputes that, but how much is too much? These powers were fine in Walker’s hands; they should not fall into Evers’s.
Not sore losers, just politicians doing what they do. And yes, it’s a power grab; that’s what politics is about. What’s your objection?
“”their actions as a power grab.””
It’s about time they got into the fight instead of playing punching bag.
“The Democrats have called this a power grab and it goes against the will of the people.”
Hoo-boy, where to start.
– Not sure I would call 50,000 votes found at the last minute in Milwaukee Country “the will of the people”.
– Reducing the power of government to act unilaterally is a power grab? Or limiting someone else’s grubby little grabbiness?
– “Power grab” = Is a “Power Grab” properly defined as Democrat’s projecting their motives on others or as a legal and successful implementation of a policy Democrats don’t like? Discuss amongst yourselves!
– Fellow Republicans, what say we disarm unilaterally?
I could go on.
Anyone want to pop-up the video of Gollum grasping for the one ring before falling in the volcano and saying “My precious”? I think that about sums up Democrats these days.
“This does make the GOP come off as sore losers and their actions as a power grab.”
Really? Walker was in the lead after 99.9% of the ballots were in and then in the middle of the night, ballots were miraculously “found” in Milwaukee (which had already reported) that gave Evers the lead and coincidentally just enough to put him over the threshold for a recount.
Democratic cities in Wisconsin are regularly the last to report their votes, election after election.
The rumor I heard is that Milwaukee has had for years a declining population, but voter participation has gone up, so they are still good for the votes. Sort of like Colorado where many counties have more registered voters than residents. Math is hard.
Hope McConnell is paying attention in case Dems retake the Senate next election and reinstates the filibuster and also makes it extremely difficult to remove.
A better tactic would be to ensure Dems dont take over the Senate.
Assuming you mean the filibuster on judicial appointments, I don’t think that’s possible. A majority in the senate can in principle change whichever of its rules they like, and no legislation can change that. The only thing that protects rules annoying to the current majority is the knowledge that once they’re destroyed there is no bringing them back. Reid learned that lesson.
I am a resident of Wisconsin and I have a problem with this. It does look like a power grab and it does look like the actions of sore losers seeking to subvert the will of the voters.
On the other hand I know what the John Doe Dems are capable of. We have a particularly vile brand in this state and if left unchecked they will be very bad for this state.
I am also not convinced, giving the 50,000 “found” ballots in Milwaukee that Walker actually lost.
The Dems in Milwaukee and Madison, the two islands of progressivism in our state, will do anything to take down Walker and to return them to the glory days of Doyle when the state treasury was raped for the benefit of unions and parasites.
“My only question is why didn’t the Republicans have a problem with too much power going through the executive with Scott Walker at the helm? Oh that’s right. Scott Walker is a Republican.
The fact is you shouldn’t be okay with too much power in the executive branch no matter who occupies that office. This does make the GOP come off as sore losers and their actions as a power grab.”
Is the author of this evenly vaguely familiar with the previously mentioned “John Doe” investigations by Democrats, their operatives, and supporters? Just a whiff of understanding, maybe? Your comment suggests a complete lack of information on how Democrats abused government to ruin the lives of innocents. A lack of awareness on how Democrats engineered public sector unions to control the political arena. Can you write anything to suggest you’re not just somebody who read a headline and jumped to conclusions?
Since Walker and the Republicans took power, they have embarked upon a carefully orchestrated campaign to undermine the power of the Democrat party. Now, they have gone the extra mile and directly undermined the powers of an incoming Democrat governor. However, what is good for the goose is good for the gander. Should the Democrats regain the legislature and the governorship and this could all be reversed and bite the Republicans in the butt.