Now Two of Them Want to Impeach Gansler
The Gazette had a story yesterday about other Republicans ... well, maybe one ... joining anti-gay Delegate Don Dwyer in calling for the impeachment of Maryland state Attorney General Doug Gansler, after Gansler issued an opinion that Maryland should recognize marriages, including same-sex marriages, from other states.
Can they do that?
It seems not. Marc Korman at Maryland Politics Watch has the analysis:
Back to The Gazette:
Yes, this is one of the things an Attorney General does, it's part of the job. There is an ambiguous law, the legislature can ask him what he thinks it means. He doesn't change the law, but his explanation can guide jurists in deciding cases.
A little more from The Gazette:
It sounds like the rules are pretty clear. It is notable that Boteler issued a news release rather than a motion in the legislature.
The Gazette might be blowing it a little out of proportion to say that "the GOP" is trying to impeach Gansler. The GOP of course would like any Democrat to lose their position or be embarrassed publicly, but so far it appears that two legislators have said something. This might gain them some prestige in their districts, it wouldn't be good for a politician from our county but it might work somewhere else. There is no chance Gansler will be removed from office for responding to a request from the legislature for an opinion.
ANNAPOLIS — Del. Don Dwyer Jr. has some company in his quest to impeach Attorney General Douglas F. Gansler over an opinion he issued on same-sex marriage.
Del. Joseph C. Boteler III on Monday issued a news release calling on State Prosecutor Robert A. Rohrbaugh to initiate charges of "willful neglect of duty" against Gansler (D).
Boteler (R-Dist. 8) of Carney sent a letter to Rohrbaugh on March 10 asking about the process for moving forward with impeachment charges in court.
In a March 8 letter in response to a question from Dwyer, Assistant Attorney General Kathryn M. Rowe wrote "to have the Attorney General removed for willful neglect of duty, the State Prosecutor or the State's Attorney would need to bring charges in the appropriate jurisdiction."
Boteler said he would support Dwyer in his attempt to bring impeachment charges to the floor of the House of Delegates. GOP looks for new inroads on Gansler impeachment
Can they do that?
It seems not. Marc Korman at Maryland Politics Watch has the analysis:
Delegate Dwyer has expressed an interest in introducing articles of impeachment against the Attorney General. But even a cursory review of Article V of the Maryland Constitution reveals that the General Assembly cannot remove an Attorney General. Article V, Section 1 of the Constitution specifically says that the Attorney General is subject to removal “for incompetency, willful neglect of duty or misdemeanor in office, on conviction in a court of law.” The conviction in a court of law is the central element there, meaning the legislature is not the major actor.
Article III, Section 26 of the Constitution does reserve the sole power of impeachment to the House of Delegates and it is not clear to authorities if Attorneys General fall under the provision. The other statewide elected officials, the Governor and Comptroller, have specific impeachment and removal provisions about them in the Constitution that reference the General Assembly. The Attorney General does not.
Assuming that the Attorney General can be impeached under the General Assembly’s impeachment power, they cannot be removed by the legislature based on Article V. So perhaps Delegate Dwyer can impeach the Attorney General, but it would be meaningless as the sole power to remove him belongs to a court. The Attorney General and Impeachment
Back to The Gazette:
Each year, Dwyer introduces a bill calling for a statewide voter referendum on a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage.
Boteler said while he had heard from constituents about the opinion, "It's really not about the issue. It's about an oath of office that we all take."
The opinion could set a precedent for the Attorney General to rule on other matters, Boteler said.
"We need to be careful we don't go down a slippery slope where the Attorney General can make decisions on what is law, what is not law," he said.
Critics have said Gansler is circumventing the legislature and ignoring a 2007 ruling against same-sex marriage by the Court of Appeals and a 2004 opinion by his predecessor, J. Joseph Curran Jr. (D).
Gansler has said the opinion was not politically motivated, but was simply a response to Madaleno's request and he released the opinion when it was finished.
Yes, this is one of the things an Attorney General does, it's part of the job. There is an ambiguous law, the legislature can ask him what he thinks it means. He doesn't change the law, but his explanation can guide jurists in deciding cases.
A little more from The Gazette:
"The House Speaker has publically [sic] stated that he will rule the charge out of order citing the opinion that the Attorney General cannot be impeached as the authority for the out of order ruling," Dwyer wrote in a news release last week.
Dwyer said this week he expects House Speaker Michael E. Busch (D-Dist. 30) of Annapolis will call on House Parliamentarian Kathleen M. Dumais (D-Dist. 15) of Rockville to rule on the impeachment article Dwyer intends to bring.
In a letter on Monday to Del. Brian McHale (D-Dist. 46) of Baltimore, the House chairman of the Legislative Ethics Committee, Dwyer asked that the Speaker "appoint a non member [sic] to preside as Parliamentarian."
"In order for the Parliamentarian to rule fairly and objectively on a question, a legitimate Parliamentarian is never a voting member of the organization or governing body," Dwyer wrote.
It sounds like the rules are pretty clear. It is notable that Boteler issued a news release rather than a motion in the legislature.
The Gazette might be blowing it a little out of proportion to say that "the GOP" is trying to impeach Gansler. The GOP of course would like any Democrat to lose their position or be embarrassed publicly, but so far it appears that two legislators have said something. This might gain them some prestige in their districts, it wouldn't be good for a politician from our county but it might work somewhere else. There is no chance Gansler will be removed from office for responding to a request from the legislature for an opinion.
posted by JimK at 8:59 AM
18 Comments:
“for incompetency, willful neglect of duty or misdemeanor in office, on conviction in a court of law.”
the "court of law" phrase obviously refers to cases where the cause of removal is the perpetration of a misdemeanor
the other two grounds could be amply determined by the legislature
(March 17) -- As part of a one-year celebration to honor the 100th anniversary of Ronald Reagan's birth, General Electric will run ads honoring the 40th president's legacy -- and will donate $10 million to The Ronald Reagan Presidential Foundation and Library, along with an additional $5 million in scholarships.
General Electric's donation will support a state-of-the-art museum at the Reagan Library. GE will also contribute $5 million to launch and support the GE-Reagan Scholars Program, and will donate 208 episodes of "General Electric Theater" in which Reagan hosted or appeared from 1954 to 1962.
In addition to donations, GE also plans to run TV, radio and print ads to honor the man and celebrate the centennial. The TV ads will feature photos from Reagan's GE days as well as his presidential years, accompanied by the words "Because long before he changed the world, or led a nation, or governed a state, he inspired our company."
November get closer every day:
Just when you think you've seen it all in Washington... along comes something like this:
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, unable to get the votes to pass Obamacare on an up-or-down majority vote, says she will try to pass the controversial health care reform bill without making members vote on it.
Unbelievable.
Pelosi says she might use a procedural tactic where the House will vote on the package of fixes to the Senate bill... and then say that vote would imply that lawmakers "deem" the health care bill to be passed.
Politically speaking, this is beyond sleazy. It's meant to protect Democrats - especially those up for re-election in November - from having to make a tough vote. Pelosi says of this process, "I like it... because people don't have to vote on the Senate bill." In Nancy Pelosi's world, accountability is a dirty word.
The Senate bill, of course, contains many provisions that are unpopular among some House Democrats - including language on abortion funding and taxes on high-cost insurance plans.
Republicans are making sure citizens know that liberal Democrats are trying to avoid taking responsibility.
Meanwhile President Obama is campaigning relentlessly - calling on lawmakers to pass health care reform, "I want some courage. I want us to do the right thing."
The irony here is if Nancy Pelosi gets her way, it won't take much courage at all on the part of our so-called representatives.
House phone lines were nearing capacity on Wednesday as voters called in their objections to Pelosi's tactics.
The House e-mail system was also deluged in what the House’s technology office called “a very significant spike” in traffic.
The office of the Chief Administrative Officer (CAO) sent out a system-wide advisory to member offices, warning them of the dramatic increase in traffic.
“Our phone system is nearing capacity,” said Jeff Ventura, spokesman for the CAO. “It got critical enough whereby we notified all systems’ administrators throughout the House that the phone systems are overloading.”
Andrea-not anon
So does the many named anon have multiple personality disorder? Now unlike the fake "ex-gay' thing, people with MPD should be protected under the law.
"A rather dramatic swing in the Gallup Daily Tracking poll has put President Obama's job rating upside down for the first time, with more Americans now disapproving of job he's doing than approving."
TIGER WOODS can teach House Speaker Nancy Pelosi something about the path to redemption: After bad publicity, do what you are paid to do.
Discuss
COMMENTS (23)
In Woods’s case, that would be to play golf. In Pelosi’s case, it is to have an up-or-down vote on health care reform.
Lawmakers are sent to Washington to vote, not to hide behind arcane process that allows them to pass legislation without explicitly saying “aye’’ or “nay.’’
The year of ugly sausage-making behind health care legislation left Congress as exposed as Rielle Hunter in her GQ photo spread. Maybe once upon a time, only process liberals, not average Americans, really cared how a bill became a law. Now, thanks to Fox News, it’s reversed. Liberals argue that the end justifies the means. But like John Edwards’s lover, they are far too exposed and the view isn’t pretty.
After exposure as a serial adulterer, Woods is aiming for the respect that comes with the PGA Tour at the Masters. The world won’t instantly forget the cocktail waitresses and miscellaneous mistresses he bedded. But if he handles golf with dignity and stays away from women who aren’t his wife, he can start to change his tawdry image as an unprincipled creep.
Americans currently see a Congress filled with unprincipled creeps. According to a new NBC poll, only 17 percent of American voters approve of how lawmakers are doing their jobs. Asked which phrases describe their feelings about Congress, the top two responses were only interested in staying in office and too close to special interest groups — that’s not too different from Woods’s branding problem.
How does the average lawmaker start to turn around that contempt and get respect? Play the game the way it’s supposed to be played. Stride up to the tee. Swing at the ball. Be a profile in courage, not cowardice.
No one is going to respect a US representative who is too afraid to cast a vote for a plan that is supposed to revolutionize health care. If revolution is such a great idea, put your name behind it.
In Ohio, President Obama said, “I don’t know about the politics, but I know what’s the right thing to do.’’
A president who promised transparency and openness knows the politics, too. The right thing to do is to vote, not to avoid a vote.
According to news reports, the plan that Pelosi is considering involves a maneuver that allows House Democrats to pass the health care bill passed by the Senate last December without explicitly voting for it. As explained by the New York Times, House Democrats would approve a package of changes to the Senate bill in a budget reconciliation bill. Then, the Senate bill would be “deemed passed’’ when the House adopts rules for debate on the reconciliation bill.
It’s hocus-pocus that doesn’t fool anyone, but is guaranteed to anger many, including friends and foes.
This, from the party that claims to be all about transparency, in today's Washington Post:
"It's more insider and process-oriented than most people want to know," the speaker said in a roundtable discussion with bloggers Monday about the reconciliation package. "But I like it," she said, "because people don't have to vote on the Senate bill."
So Speaker Pelosi will "deem" the $875 billion Senate healthcare reform bill to have already passed the House, a process the Post's editorial page says "threatens to turn into something unseemly." Threatens? It turned unseemly a long time ago--let's recall the Cornhusker Compromise--which is why the speaker can't get enough votes to pass it. So she's turned to parliamentary sleight-of-hand in an effort to get the measure passed in the next few days. It would allow wavering Democrats to say they never voted for the bill--or against it. My colleague Robert Schlesinger wrote yesterday that the whole thing reminds him of John Kerry's famous "I was for it before I was against it." I agree.
Pelosi explained to the bloggers why she doesn't have the votes: "We don't have the votes yet because we don't have a bill yet." That's the whole problem here: The American people know there isn't a bill yet, no one's read it, and yet it's being "deemed" as having passed Congress. She's right about one thing: It's more insider and process-oriented than most people want to know. The problem is not process in general, it's this process. The process most people want is the one that pays for every piece of legislation before it can be considered--called "pay-go"--and not the process that rams through unread legislation that costs over three quarters of a trillion dollars without a vote.
The Cincinnati Enquirer put it this way today in its lead editorial:
Real debate has been sidestepped, while Democrats played a childish game of Catch-22 with healthcare legislation: Congressional leaders wouldn't allow Republican proposals to be formally considered, then turned around and accused them of not having alternatives. Among themselves, Democrats cut a series of backroom deals that in any other context would be considered criminal payoffs and bribery...
This disgusting process, which Democrats brazenly wish to bring to conclusion this week, is being done with little regard for the opinions of a clear majority of Americans who, while they may believe healthcare reform is necessary, think this particular approach will take our nation down the wrong economic path.
While a lot of people have a problem with the substance of the administration's healthcare reform agenda, even more people have a problem with a process that is not accountable, fiscally responsible, or transparent. It's one more example of the arrogance in Washington that is making voters so angry.
Anon quoted:
“even more people have a problem with a process that is not accountable, fiscally responsible, or transparent. It's one more example of the arrogance in Washington that is making voters so angry.”
Indeed. That’s precisely why we voted the GOP out of the Whitehouse back in ’08. The fiscal irresponsibility of “cut taxes, deregulate, and spend” finally became apparent to the world with the collapse of the financial system. Since America has spent the last couple of decades putting its growth on the Bank of China credit card, now we get to pay the piper. It’s not going to be pleasant.
Have a nice day,
Cynthia
2 trillion more debt since Obama's been in office, Cynthia
Bush looks like an anal tightwad by comparison
-Passing Obamacare means within three months people who have been denied coverage because they have a pre-existing condition will be included in high-risk pools created by the government so they can find coverage.
-Passing Obamacare means within six months health insurance companies will not be allowed to deny kids health insurance if they have a pre-existing condition.
-Passing Obamacare means within six months children will be able to stay on their parents health insurance plans until they are 26 years old.
-Passing Obamacare means within six months insurers will be barred from imposing lifetime limits on benefits.
-Passing Obamacare means within six months insurers will be barred from rescinding your coverage should you file a claim.
-Passing Obamacare means that starting January 1, 2011, if you are on medicare, you will qualify for free annual wellness visits
-Passing Obamacare means that starting January 1, 1011, insurance companies will be required to spend 80-85% of their money they take in from premiums on medical care and if they don't they'll have to refund you the difference back.
-Passing Obamacare means before they can hike their rates, insurance companies will have to announce and justify the rate hikes and have them reviewed before they can be implemented.
-Passing Obamacare means in 2014 it will be illegal for insurance companies to deny anyone coverage for pre-existing conditions, not just children.
-Passing Obamacare means in 2004 insurers will not be able to impose annual limits on benefits.
Americans want these changes. Call the House of Representatives switchboard and tell your Representative you want these changes too.
(202) 224-3121
Oops typo at the end.
"2004" should be "2014"
It took all the spending of World War II and then some to get us out of the last depression.
Much of the debt the Obama administration has been forced to incur is to pay for the problems created by the policies the GOP and the Bush Administration implemented.
The GOP is claiming Congress needs to start over from scratch to reform healthcare in this country. But when the Grand Obstructionist Party controlled the White House and both houses of Congress, the only healthcare reform they could manage to create through reconciliation was the unfunded Medicare prescription drug program that created the prescription donut hole for seniors and barred bargaining with drug manufacturers for discounts for the large pool of Medicare recipients.
Americans want real heathcare reform, they want the changes the Democrats are offering.
The CBO issued its report on Obamacare
The NYTimes reports:
the nonpartisan budget office had determined that the package of legislation, which would cost about $940 billion over ten years, would produce “the largest deficit reduction of any bill we have adopted in Congress since 1993,” when it passed tax increases sought by President Clinton.
"they want the changes the Democrats are offering"
if so, then why is Nancy Pelosi having so much trouble rounding up a majority of Democrats in the House to vote for it?
why aren't politicians falling all over themselves to vote for this popular crowd-pleaser
"Much of the debt the Obama administration has been forced to incur is to pay for the problems created by the policies the GOP and the Bush Administration implemented"
not really, and Obama intends to keep going
"the nonpartisan budget office had determined that the package of legislation, which would cost about $940 billion over ten years, would produce “the largest deficit reduction of any bill we have adopted in Congress since 1993,” when it passed tax increases sought by President Clinton"
oh, wonderbar
they're going to increase medicare taxes and not use it for a Medicare system with untold trillions in unfiunded liabilities
let's also raise Social Security taxes and use it public broadcasting
"-Passing Obamacare means within three months people who have been denied coverage because they have a pre-existing condition will be included in high-risk pools created by the government so they can find coverage.
-Passing Obamacare means within six months health insurance companies will not be allowed to deny kids health insurance if they have a pre-existing condition.
-Passing Obamacare means within six months children will be able to stay on their parents health insurance plans until they are 26 years old.
-Passing Obamacare means within six months insurers will be barred from imposing lifetime limits on benefits.
-Passing Obamacare means within six months insurers will be barred from rescinding your coverage should you file a claim.
-Passing Obamacare means that starting January 1, 2011, if you are on medicare, you will qualify for free annual wellness visits
-Passing Obamacare means that starting January 1, 1011, insurance companies will be required to spend 80-85% of their money they take in from premiums on medical care and if they don't they'll have to refund you the difference back.
-Passing Obamacare means before they can hike their rates, insurance companies will have to announce and justify the rate hikes and have them reviewed before they can be implemented.
-Passing Obamacare means in 2014 it will be illegal for insurance companies to deny anyone coverage for pre-existing conditions, not just children.
-Passing Obamacare means in 2004 insurers will not be able to impose annual limits on benefits.
Americans want these changes. Call the House of Representatives switchboard and tell your Representative you want these changes too.
(212) 224-3121"
oh, wonderbar
all that for free?
can we get a yacht and an island with an ice cream volcano too?
Jeez, "Anonymous" - it looks like you have broken your record for consecutive rants and raves, using a different name each time and using the maximum amount of space you can fill at one time with comments you are paid to make ("eat a peach", "excitment...", "no super majority", "st. pat's news","ler's deem...(huh?)", "tighten up...","oh, wonderbar" (twice in succession, no less!)), most of which fall just short of a typical Doctoral dissertation.
Do you ever shut up, or is your verbal diarrhea incurable?
REPUBLICAN TEA PARTY ANTI HEALTH CARE PROTESTERS MOCK PARKINSON'S PATIENT
if so, then why is Nancy Pelosi having so much trouble rounding up a majority of Democrats
That was before the CBO report came out yesterday. Yesterday's NBC News/WSJournal poll shows the tide is turning. Now 46% of Americans approve of Obamacare while 45% disapprove. Even some of Stupek's dozen are changing their no votes to yes now that Sister Carol Keehan, president of the Catholic Health Association and Sister Simone Campbell, executive director of Network and 59,000 American nuns have read the Senate bill and determined that no federal funds will be used for abortion.
Here's Sister Carol Keehan's statement:
The time is now for health reform
As I watched our president present his plan to pass the health reform legislation, it was clear this is an historic opportunity to make great improvements in the lives of so many Americans. Is it perfect? No. Does it cover everyone? No. But is it a major first step? Yes.
The insurance reforms will make the lives of millions more secure, and their coverage more affordable. The reforms will eventually make affordable health insurance available to 31 million of the 47 million Americans currently without coverage.
CHA has a major concern on life issues. We said there could not be any federal funding for abortions and there had to be strong funding for maternity care, especially for vulnerable women. The bill now being considered allows people buying insurance through an exchange to use federal dollars in the form of tax credits and their own dollars to buy a policy that covers their health care. If they choose a policy with abortion coverage, then they must write a separate personal check for the cost of that coverage.
There is a requirement that the insurance companies be audited annually to assure that the payment for abortion coverage fully covers the administrative and clinical costs, that the payment is held in a separate account from other premiums, and that there are no federal dollars used.
In addition, there is a wonderful provision in the bill that provides $250 million over 10 years to pay for counseling, education, job training and housing for vulnerable women who are pregnant or parenting. Another provision provides a substantial increase in the adoption tax credit and funding for adoption assistance programs.
We expect to see charges and counter charges about what is in the bill and how it will work. We need to carefully review its provisions, its safeguards and its implementation schedule and help everyone understand what the actual proposal is. We are especially called to share our expertise in the health care marketplace to help people understand this bill. So many people depend on our continuing to advocate for quality health reform for everyone.
all that for free?
Free? Uh no, Anone! Try to absorb the news.
The CBO report says the Democrats’ health overhaul will cost $940 billion over a decade, expand insurance coverage to 32 million Americans and reduce the deficit by $138 billion over the first decade of the legislation.
It's only a matter of time until the GOP's surefire WE'RE AGAINST REDUCING THE DEFICIT BY $138 BILLION will sweep Dems who voted for Obamacare out of office this November.
Oh, and BTW, the provision that a review board review proposed insurance rate hikes was killed by the Senate parliamentarian. "The announcement hands a victory to the managed US healthcare industry, which claims that it needs double-digit rate hikes to maintain profitability."
Post a Comment
<< Home