The Republican governor of North Carolina just lost to a Democrat. So he and his friends have passed legislation diminishing the Governor's power, to limit the incoming Governor's ability to govern.
Childish and petty? Yes.
Going to be repeated by other Governors? Definitely.
And... hang on... they are diminishing the power of the government? Umm... that kinda seems like ... well ... it could be ... maybe ... a good thing?
What if every deposed despot were to systematically reduce the powers of the office they were leaving?
With as much government overreach there is... I'm, well, not "hopeful", but definitely watching closely...
I don't want to abolish government. I simply want to reduce it to the size where I can drag it into the bathroom and drown it in the bathtub. - Grover Norquist, NPR interview, May 2001 Republicans want smaller government the way burglars want smaller police forces - it makes it easier to steal stuff. Libertarians forget: an effective government keeps others from ruling you. You end up with warlords. This is why Germany was the last state to develop in modern Europe - the Hapsburgs were a loose confederacy of self-interested duchies and fiefdoms that sparred constantly and kept their dominion poor, uneducated and superstitious. Great for the Hapsburgs. Shitty for everyone else. The modern Republican Party, everybody. What if every deposed despot were to systematically reduce the powers of the office they were leaving?
There is something to be said for Government in Moderation, of course. I think the pendulum has swung a little far to the left, and would like to see properly enforced laws and decision power returned to judges, instead of the ever-increasing legislation. Nobody wins when new laws get implemented, because new laws - by their very design - create new loopholes. So, generally speaking, I'd like to see power move from the law-makers to the law-enforcers.
You're speaking in generalities. Let's talk specifics: So that's not smaller, that's bigger. That's also taking an odd number (which cannot tie) and replacing it with an even one (which always will). What about HB17? An important part of the bill that might go unnoticed involves changes the oversight of the controversial Achievement School District (ASD) program. The ASD program places five low-performing elementary schools under the operation of a charter school operator. The program is based off a similar program in Tennessee that has failed to improve student performance. So that doesn't shrink government, either - it just changes who wields it. Oh, and sets up charter schools. But then, they filed 26 other bills. Certainly worthy of a special session. Government. Shrinking all the way to permanence. So, generally speaking, you can want whatever you want. But specifically speaking, there has never been an elected official who thinks that they should have less power so their opponents can have more.Senate Bill 4 dramatically reshapes the governor's power in election oversight. Previously, the governor appointed a majority of state election board officials on the five-person panel. SB4 expands the board to eight members. The governor now appoints four and Republicans select the other four. Republicans call it bipartisan good governance. Democrats call it a power grab.
In nearly every way possible, the bill strips power from the State Board of Education to provide more authority to the newly-elected Republican Superintendent-elect of Public Schools, Mark Johnson. If the bill becomes law, it will certainly be challenged in court due to constitutional issues.
The proposals were wide ranging. A 43-page regulatory reform bill proposed dozens of things including changing the name of the Board of Refrigeration Examiners to the Board of Commercial Refrigeration Examiners.
House Bill 17 requires the Governor's cabinet appointments to go through senate confirmation. It also makes 1,200 McCrory appointees permanent state employees.
Get rid of powers for when the guy you don't like is in office, repeal when your guy is in office.
No, they're diminishing the power of the governor. The Republican legislature gets to fill in some of the blanks, while other things will be done by the executive but less efficiently.they are diminishing the power of the government?
Important distinction in this case, yes, but largely secondary to my basic point that legislators see their job as creating legislation, rather than reducing it to a reasonable size/design. The balance of powers are there for a reason, though... the Legislature can't steamroll the Governor and vice-versa. And if they have passed/eliminated legislation that does that, then they are up against Constitutional problems. We shall see what happens!
Note that they are specifically diminishing the power of one Democratic politician. The goal of that could be more to weaken the power of the Democratic Party (thereby making the GOP relatively more powerful) than shrink the size of government in general. Watch closely
No. This is the legislature that passed the infamous bathroom bill, and before that the unconstitutional gay marriage ammendment. They lost the governorship because in trying to make North Carolina the most bigoted state in the country they cost the state a lot of money as corporations, who have gay employees they would like to keep, decided North Carolina wasn't the place for them. It has been theocratic happy fun time in North Carolina for so long because the Republicans got to draw the congressional districts, but they were so obviously racist a judge made them redraw them and have another election next year. This isn't small government, this is the Republicans making sure they get continue with their petty cruelty for another year before they get kicked to the curb.