Spring Breakenator
Almost by accident I ran into this piece in the LA Times disucssing a proposal by a CA State Sen. Dave Cox to amend the state constitution to allow the governor to carry his powers with him wherever he goes.
[FULL DISCLOSURE: I worked in the Office of Lt. Gov. Bustamante during the summer of 2003.]
At least in the article and I have a feeling in general as well, Cox is giving the impression that only Bustamante opposes the measure. Yet the article itself notes that a similar measure died in the Assembly last year. I, suspect, that the reasons for opposing the measure held by Bustamante are also held by quite a few others.
The first red flag that pops up is the mere coincidence that the measure is being introduced during the administration of a governor who has been out of state for a total of 3 months during the first year and half in office. So basically if there is any one reason to make sure the governor stays in the State to pay attention to state affairs will now disappear. Of course the flip side to this is that if the governor has state business to attend to somewhere else in the country he shouldn't have to worry about the Lt. Gov. interferring in his absence. However, since the governor can reverse any action of the Lt. Gov. this does not seem to be as big a concern as its counterpart.
Second, just as a policy matter there are some serious arguments to be made on both sides. If the governor is accessible at all times even when out of the state, why not give him the same powers as the US President? But then what if the governor needs to consult other government officials? If let's say there's a major earthquake, do I want the governor talking to various agency heads by phone, or do I want the Lt.G, the second-highest constitutional officer in the state, personally handling the situation? The answer, of course, is depends on who's in which office.
[FULL DISCLOSURE: I worked in the Office of Lt. Gov. Bustamante during the summer of 2003.]
At least in the article and I have a feeling in general as well, Cox is giving the impression that only Bustamante opposes the measure. Yet the article itself notes that a similar measure died in the Assembly last year. I, suspect, that the reasons for opposing the measure held by Bustamante are also held by quite a few others.
The first red flag that pops up is the mere coincidence that the measure is being introduced during the administration of a governor who has been out of state for a total of 3 months during the first year and half in office. So basically if there is any one reason to make sure the governor stays in the State to pay attention to state affairs will now disappear. Of course the flip side to this is that if the governor has state business to attend to somewhere else in the country he shouldn't have to worry about the Lt. Gov. interferring in his absence. However, since the governor can reverse any action of the Lt. Gov. this does not seem to be as big a concern as its counterpart.
Second, just as a policy matter there are some serious arguments to be made on both sides. If the governor is accessible at all times even when out of the state, why not give him the same powers as the US President? But then what if the governor needs to consult other government officials? If let's say there's a major earthquake, do I want the governor talking to various agency heads by phone, or do I want the Lt.G, the second-highest constitutional officer in the state, personally handling the situation? The answer, of course, is depends on who's in which office.
posted by Armen Adzhemyan at 3:55 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home