On following the law
Tuesday, Nov 20, 2007 - Posted by Rich Miller
* Gov. Blagojevich’s decision to forge ahead with his health insurance plan despite the Joint Committee on Administrative Rules’ veto of the proposal is drawing some ire. The SJ-R editorial…
So when the bipartisan legislative panel last week voted 9-2 against the governor’s emergency expansion request, only the uninitiated saw it as a gubernatorial stop sign. Blagojevich didn’t even see it as a speed bump. By Friday, we had learned the orders were already issued to expand the program. He says JCAR’s authority of rulemaking is only advisory.
Then why even ask? Why even pretend to play by the rules, governor? Maybe it’s time for Blagojevich to break out the crown and scepter and start ruling as the sovereign he apparently wants to be. The sad thing is Blagojevich’s disdain for working within the system may end up harming the cause to expand health-care coverage. It certainly has hindered progress in many other important areas: pension reform, infrastructure and school-funding reform, to name a few.
Consistency is generally a good thing. But it’s nothing to be proud of when you consistently screw up.
* What everyone in the “big media” has so far failed to point out is that the governor signed into law an expansion of JCAR’s powers during his first term. To now claim that JCAR’s role is purely “advisory” is ridiculously hypocritical. The governor had this to say yesterday…
“Where is it written that a handful of legislators - 12 of them - can tell the executive branch what it’s going to do when it comes to administering the executive branch?” the governor said.
Um, Governor, it’s in the bll you signed.
* The Tribune asks: Who needs a legislature?
Springfield is awash in speculation that Blagojevich wants to push as many people as possible into the state program and spend as much as possible, even while its legality is in question. That way, the theory goes, the program becomes so entrenched that the legislature would have no alternative but to find money to keep it going.
That would be reckless, particularly in a state that has more than $100 billion in debts and obligations, much of it for pensions and health-care costs. The state’s in a fiscal hole. And the governor is digging faster.
Not mentioned are previous reports that state revenues for the current fiscal year appear to be in decline. We’re in for a much nastier session next year (if you can imagine that) than we had this year unless a peace treaty is signed in blood, and soon.
* And Jim Duffet, who has gone out of his way to push the governor’s plan, had this to say…
“This issue isn’t about Governor Blagojevich. This isn’t about JCAR,’’ said Jim Duffett, executive director of the Campaign for Better Health Care. “The people want action, they want the General Assembly to take action on accessible, affordable health care.’’
If a governor had abused his or her authority to deny health insurance benefits despite a JCAR ruling, I’m sure Duffett would have a far different take on what the “issue” is. We’re supposed to live by our laws. Duffett’s position as an advocate is understandable, but he should remember that Blagojevich won’t be governor forever.
- Bill S. Preston, Esq. - Tuesday, Nov 20, 07 @ 9:51 am:
Rich, not to be a pest, but shouldn’t your post read “Um, Governor, it’s in the bill you signed.”
He may be acting like an I-art-holier-than-thou ass, but I still think the G is capitalized.
- Cassandra - Tuesday, Nov 20, 07 @ 9:58 am:
We live in a country in which illegal immigrants can get emergency medical care (very broadly defined, not just er-type stuff) via federal regs but we deny affordable care to our own citizens, many of whom not only pay taxes to support the free care that so many illegals and so-called poor Americans get?
I’m with the guv on this one. The Illinois Constitution is not about to fall. Paying for medical care trumps a great deal of other state spending, especially earmarks, bonuses to greedy contractors, huge legislator raises and so on.
- Anon - Tuesday, Nov 20, 07 @ 10:00 am:
Rich, I could look it up, but I was wondering if you new the PA number of the JCAR expansion you keep referencing.
Just curious to see what he signed into law?
- Rich Miller - Tuesday, Nov 20, 07 @ 10:01 am:
Why is it that some of you people insist on dragging illegal immigrants into every argument? Are you saying, Cassandra, that illegal immigrants should be allowed to die on the street in front of a hospital emergency room?
And if you’re worried about illegal behavior by some, why not worry about a possibly unconstitutional behavior by the chief executive of the state?
Your argument made absolutely no sense and was predicated purely on emotions. Enough.
- DumberThanYouThink - Tuesday, Nov 20, 07 @ 10:02 am:
Duffett must be hitting the la la sauce a little early today. Has he noticed that the GA has passsed dozens of health care programs. More benefits, more mandated disease coverage, etc etc. They would probably do IL Covered if whack job had a viable funding idea.
But how can we keep our name if he did something that was not dumb…
- North of I-80 - Tuesday, Nov 20, 07 @ 10:03 am:
Are we in New Jersey? Is this 1990 and we’re in Arkansas?
- Yellow Dog Democrat - Tuesday, Nov 20, 07 @ 10:05 am:
“Where is it written…” - Rod Blagojevich
5 ILCS 100/Illinois Administrative Procedure Act - Yellow Dog Democrat
- Lula May - Tuesday, Nov 20, 07 @ 10:10 am:
What’s most shocking to me is: this is the same guy that was the Vrdolyak Republican. Now he’s pushing expanded government healthcare programs. Like I said if it were any other state this guy would be a hoot.
- Don't Worry, Be Happy - Tuesday, Nov 20, 07 @ 10:11 am:
All of the news coverage on this talks about a lawsuit to stop the governor. I’m wondering at what point does this become an abuse of power sufficient for impeachment?
The cooler heads seem to be prevailing in the recall discussion, pointing out that being a buffoon is not grounds for recalling the gov, and that there exists a process for removing a governor from office if he (or she) does something completely egregious.
As we’ve seen with the gov’s lawsuits, the courts don’t like to mediate between branches of government, so perhaps impeachment is the correct path at this point.
I’m raising this seriously, not to be inflamatory, and am curious what people think. Instead of litigating the constitutionality of JCAR, it’s within the legislature’s discretion to simply state that the governor is breaking the law by moving forward, and that impeachment is the appropriate recourse.
- Yellow Dog Democrat - Tuesday, Nov 20, 07 @ 10:15 am:
“A government of laws, and not of men.” - John Adams
- Leroy - Tuesday, Nov 20, 07 @ 10:22 am:
I love it how when we are trampling on Blago, the legislature is made out to be pure as the wind driven snow.
Excuse me, but aren’t these the same people who perpetually have their hands out for pork? Aren’t these the same “You want my support for money for your program, what’s in it for *me*?”
Suddenly JCAR is this holier-than-thou organization? It is made up of the same “me first!” people that are part of the problem, gang….
- Yellow Dog Democrat - Tuesday, Nov 20, 07 @ 10:22 am:
“He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.”
“He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their Public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.”
“For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.”
“He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.”
“He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:”
When we think of the Declaration of Independence, we most often think of the Boston Tea Party. But its remarkable how many of the particulars laid out against King George deal specifically with his efforts to undermine, harrass, circumvent and ignore the Legislature.
- Rich Miller - Tuesday, Nov 20, 07 @ 10:24 am:
So, what are you saying, Leroy, that the General Assembly ought to be abolished? I don’t quite get your argument here.
- Yellow Dog Democrat - Tuesday, Nov 20, 07 @ 10:26 am:
Um, Leroy, JCAR is not holy. This is government.
But, it is a body, established by statute, whose approval is required for the adoption of new rules by the Administration.
It’s also important to note that the Administration has rule-making authority only in as far as it is granted by the underlying statute.
Clearly, you have no understanding of the process.
- He makes Ryan Look like a Saint - Tuesday, Nov 20, 07 @ 10:26 am:
There is only so much money to go around. Tell the Gov that he can either have the health care expansion (which is unaffordable) but the money will be taken away from DOT Aeronotics, Chicago Transit bailout and other priorities the Governor favors.
Fitzy where are you, a couple of inditements and we will be free of this guy!
- Anonymous - Tuesday, Nov 20, 07 @ 10:28 am:
“Blagojevich won’t be governor forever.” That line alone made my day!
- He makes Ryan Look like a Saint - Tuesday, Nov 20, 07 @ 10:33 am:
YDD-Where do you get all your quotes….that was awesome.
- Jaded - Tuesday, Nov 20, 07 @ 10:47 am:
To answer an earlier question, the Governor signed PA 93-1035 effective 9/10/2004. What did this do? In the simple terms, before this law was signed, JCAR could only prohibit a rule for 180 days without action by the whole GA. When the Governor signed this bill, JCAR now had the power to prohibit a rule INDEFINITELY unless JCAR was convinced to lift the prohibition, or the GA acted as a whole to lift the prohibition (it is a little more complicated that than this, but that is the general idea)
Why any state executive would give a legislative ovesight committee so much power is behond me, but he did. So “Mr. where is it written…” put his signature on a law to make it so. If that wasn’t bad enough, he turned around and signed a clean up bill (PA 93-1074) passed in the veto session to clarify the absolute intent of the original bill.
Nice job Governor short term memory.
- Captain America - Tuesday, Nov 20, 07 @ 10:51 am:
The law and the constitution mean what Governor Musahrraf-Balgojevich wants them to mean.
“L’Etat,Illinois, C’est moi, declared Governor Musharraf-Blagojevich, at the November 29-30 special session. If you don’t like it,sue me.
- Anonymous - Tuesday, Nov 20, 07 @ 10:53 am:
I think folks are seriously underestimating the serious constitutional questions concerning the JCAR process and the serious question about the extent of the executive power and the legislature’s ability to curtail it. For example, Yellow Dog’s comment - “It’s also important to note that the Administration has rule-making authority only in as far as it is granted by the underlying statute.” - is not true. The Illinois APA seeks to constrain the executive power to define what executive action “requires” rulemaking and then define what the rulemaking process is. A decent argument can be made that the GA has overstepped the executive power in both cases - seeking to “require” rulemaking in instances which should not require it, and allowing the legislative (actually, a committee of the legislature) to then “veto” the rulemaking that the executive engages in. Now, whether the right approach is to seek a court ruling first or simply proceed is another thing, but it certainly isn’t without precedents, e.g., at the federal level, for the executive to simply ignore unconstitutional actions by the legislature.
- VanillaMan - Tuesday, Nov 20, 07 @ 10:59 am:
What we have been seeing over the past few years is a willingness to ignor democracy from some groups who feel that the will of the people shouldn’t prevent them from enacting powers to save the people.
If you take a look at several of our current issues, you see these elitist going through our court system to overturn laws and replace them without legislative or voter processes.
There is a level of cynicism from this group that elections cannot be won, so their agenda must be enacted without voter approval.
Since when have these folks stopped believing in democracy and elections? Since when have these activists felt it appropriate to short-circuit our systems of checks and balances? How can these same people chant “diversity”, yet do all they can to deny diversity of ideas, beliefs and values to a majority of citizens?
I find Blagojevich to fit quite nicely into this group of elitists. He believes that he is morally and ethically empowered to ignor our state laws and processes because he believes his goals empower him to do so. To him, his self-described “emergency” justifies whatever means he undertakes to apply his own remedy in order to save us. His audacity is shocking, and it appears that his bold contempt for constitutional procedures is rendering his political opposition speechless.
Mr. Brady is dithering as though Blagojevich is rational. He is playing petty politics while the Governor is torching any law or rule he deems unnecessary. Mr. Blagojevich is starting forest fires on dry land as Mr. Brady urinates on a matchstick. If Mr. Brady wishes to replace Mr. Blagojevich, he will need to do far more than play politics, circa 2002.
We currently have Mr. Blagojevich for another three years. As I have posted previously, we need to either join in the political environment he is creating and take him on, or remove him from office within any legal means possible. Sitting back and waiting for Blagojevich’s next move will create further damage to Illinois as it appears the Governor is fully intending to dictate his terms.
I thought this summer was a disaster. It appears that we may be seeing an even greater disaster next year. Mr. Blagojevich’s firebomb-style politics will take any advantage during the election year he isn’t running. He likes to see people squirm and sweat. Mr. Blagojevich never mentioned his extra-legal intentions during his campaign since that isn’t how he works. Instead, the Governor is interested in creating political mayhem so that others are injured while he is politically protected.
Ladies and Gentlemen, Mr. Blagojevich is at the gate and pushing through. Why are you still sitting there in wide-eye wonder? You elected him, he is your guy. Either make nice, or stop him.
- Bill - Tuesday, Nov 20, 07 @ 11:01 am:
The problem with your arguments, besides being biased, as usual, against the governor, is that the the statute gives the governor, not JCAR, the authority to set the income limits, which he did. Sorry that most of you don’t like that. Maybe you should lobby for a change in the law although Rod would probably veto it.
- Newie Public - Tuesday, Nov 20, 07 @ 11:09 am:
Could someone please explain how 5 ILCS 100/Illinois Administrative Procedure Act applies to the Executive Branch?
- Jaded - Tuesday, Nov 20, 07 @ 11:15 am:
Bill,
I could care less about the income limits. In fact, I think they should be higher, but this is not an argument about the issue, it is an argument about process.
However, I am not sure why any of us care about this, because administrative rules are useless anyway. They are not laws, just sort of guidelines, right? At least that was the argument Blagojevich made about federal drug rules a few years back when he wanted to import cheap drugs from Canada. So, why should any of us care about administative rules? He doesn’t!
- Cassandra - Tuesday, Nov 20, 07 @ 11:16 am:
That’s not my point at all. Actually, I am not opposed to paying for emergency care for illegal immigrants; in many European countries, for example, I could get free care in an emergency.
My point is that if we can afford that, we can and should afford affordable health insurance for our own citizens. It’s all about how you prioritize the spending.
- Anonymous - Tuesday, Nov 20, 07 @ 11:17 am:
The other side of the coin to Anonymous at 10:53’s argument is the fact that administrative rules review procedures exist in Illinois and in other states to insure that executive agencies (and executives themselves) don’t trample on the powers of the legislative branch by “legislating” through rule.
JCAR’s ability to prohibit or suspend rules or even to merely object to them is also limited by statute. JCAR does NOT decide whether rules are good or bad — just whether or not they conform to the requirements of the authorizing law and the APA. A rule has to be obviously outside the bounds of the law or the intent of the legislature for JCAR to prohibit or suspend it, and until recently, such action was very rare.
Now, this next analogy might sound silly but I think it might be helpful in this context. If you remember Schoolhouse Rock’s “Three-Ring Government” song, you know that it compares the executive to the ringmaster of the circus: he’s the one who “sees that the laws get done.” He introduces the performers and tells them when to perform, but he does NOT push them aside and start doing the trapeze acts, high-wire stunts, etc. all by himself!
- GoBearsss - Tuesday, Nov 20, 07 @ 11:23 am:
Why does the Trib continue to say the State is $100 billion in debt when their own paper covered how the report was retracted.
We are high in debt, but let’s focus on accuracy. If the debt seems out of reach, nobody will ever do anything to address it.
- South Side Mike - Tuesday, Nov 20, 07 @ 11:25 am:
===he should remember that Blagojevich won’t be governor forever.===
Rich, do you promise this? Please, please tell me that this is true!
- GoBearsss - Tuesday, Nov 20, 07 @ 11:28 am:
I have to agree with Bill - when you are talking about the Governor setting income limits, you are talking about process.
The General Assembly gave the governor the authority to set the income limits, not JCAR.
So, it was perfectly within his authority given to him by the legislature to set the income limits, and JCAR tried to usurp the authority of him and the Governor.
Now, just because he was able to do it legally doesn’t mean that it was good fiscal stewardship. He should be fighting now for the revenue to pay for it, and get it passed in a supplemental.
- Captain America - Tuesday, Nov 20, 07 @ 11:29 am:
Athough, I’m greatly interested in the politics and personalites assocatied with the leadership crisis and legislative/executive dysfuntion the real problem with the Governor’s initiative is that there’s no money to pay for it. According to
the Tribune editorial - after 1/3 of the fiscal year, i/2 of the State’s $6.8 biiion Medicaid budget has already been spent. A major fiscal crisis is looming in March, even without considering Blago’s expansion initiative.
- GoBearsss - Tuesday, Nov 20, 07 @ 11:32 am:
sorry - “of him and the General Assembly”
- one of the 35 - Tuesday, Nov 20, 07 @ 11:35 am:
We should all have expected this from Blagojevich. Remember back to his first day in office where he unilaterally declared a law to be invalid, to fire 35 of us, without administative review or a court hearing. This was a clear indication of how he intended to function as King….. I mean governor.
- Jaded - Tuesday, Nov 20, 07 @ 11:35 am:
I don’t deny the Governor’s right to set the limits. But is it an emergency? JCAR did not prohibit the permanent rule, just the emergency rule. Why is it all of a sudden an emergency to increase the limits? If he had actually wanted to do this for the people, he could have filed the permanent rule last January, and it would now by a part of the voluminous administrative code. Then he could begin arguing about a funding scheme. But he didn’t.
So why is it all of a sudden a emergency? Maybe the 23% approval rating has something to do with the emergency nature of his actions.
- Anonymous - Tuesday, Nov 20, 07 @ 11:40 am:
Reason number 1,285 to vote for a Con-Con next year: amend Article IV (Legislature) to include rules review, and maybe mention JCAR by name.
- GoBearsss - Tuesday, Nov 20, 07 @ 11:49 am:
Jaded, don’t be jaded - they will block the regular rule as well. That’s what they did with the insurance rule a month or so ago. (The rule required insurance companies to report how much of the premiums the collect go to paying claims).
They first said that it wasn’t an emergency, but that they supported the regular rule. When it came time to support the regular rule, they blocked that, too.
Like was said above - don’t assume JCAR is pure in all this and doesn’t have their own motives.
- DC - Tuesday, Nov 20, 07 @ 11:57 am:
One thing is for sure: JCAR can no longer be referred to as “an obscure legislative committee”.
This has been a good argument on both sides, but there is one defining issue: the Illinois Administrative Procedures Act is the law and the Governor, by issuing a commandment to ignore JCAR, has fundamentally (and publicly) violated his oath to uphold the laws of the state. Rep. Fritchey’s arguments from a few days ago are just as relevant today. No one wants to exclude needy people from having basic access to health care, but the Governor is not immune from obeying the law that exists today. He can’t pick and choose which laws he will uphold and which ones he will ignore. I’m not a constitutional scholar, but I would suggest there is a growing amount of evidence to at least warrant a serious discussion on whether or not the Governor has perpetuated misfeasance of office and subject to an impeachment hearing. If he has not done that, then let’s get it off the blogs and move on. But, if there is clear evidence to the contrary, I think the legislature has a moral and legal obligation to move that discussion forward independent of any recall language.
This debate has gotten down to nitpicking the definition of “emergency” (I concur it was not an emergency), but the real issue is the perception that the Governor may be abusing his power.
- Bill - Tuesday, Nov 20, 07 @ 12:27 pm:
It is not an emergency if you are healthy or have health insurance. It is if you aren’t and don’t.
- DC - Tuesday, Nov 20, 07 @ 12:31 pm:
If the Governor was that concerned about it, he would have already addressed the “emergency” via legislation during the past session. I don’t disagree that people who don’t have (nor who can’t afford) insurance should be eligible for assistance — but if the Goveror was truly their savior, and if he truly cared about that, it wouldn’t have taken him 5 years to all of a sudden be concerned.
- Bill - Tuesday, Nov 20, 07 @ 12:37 pm:
“but if the Goveror was truly their savior, and if he truly cared about that, it wouldn’t have taken him 5 years to all of a sudden be concerned.”
The governor has been consistent, almost to a fault, in his view that providing access to health insurance to all Illinoisians is his number 1 priority. When it became clear that his programs and proposals for revenue to carry them out were not going to get through the legislature he chose a different strategy. The objective has always been the same. It looks now like he has accomplished his priority.
- DC - Tuesday, Nov 20, 07 @ 12:40 pm:
The more I think about this, the madder I get. What the Governor has exceled at is playing politics with hope — the hope of people who put their trust in him when all he cares about is how the press release will result in a poll bounce. I think he’s morally bankrupt, has fiscally bankrupted the state for decades to come, and displays an unwarranted arrogance the defies logic and responsible leadership.
I think I’ve reached a point where it’s not just disheartening to watch and listen to him: now it’s just nauseating.
- DC - Tuesday, Nov 20, 07 @ 12:43 pm:
When the end justifies the means in state government, we have truly sold out. His priority is laudable, as long as he accomplishes it with fiscal responsibility and constitutional compliance. We know how the first one has turned out; time will tell on the second.
- Anon - Tuesday, Nov 20, 07 @ 12:57 pm:
Bill and Gobearss –
Are we talking about the Children’s Health Insurance Program Act? The one that defines “eligible child” in Section 20(a)(2) to mean “whose annual household income, as determined by the Department, is above 133% of the federal poverty level and at or below 200% of the federal poverty level”?
Unless that Act has been amended recently, it doesn’t look like it gives the Governor the authority to set the income levels. But I’m not sure if this is the right Act or if it has been amended.
- Bookworm - Tuesday, Nov 20, 07 @ 12:57 pm:
If JCAR is in the wrong here, the proper course of action for the Governor and HFS is any or all of the following: 1) scale back the emergency rule to cover only people losing SCHIP coverage (something JCAR members said would not be a problem); 2) seek a court order challenging the suspension of the emergency rule; 3) seek some kind of legislative action like a supplemental approp to implement and fund the program. (He can always call a special session if necessary
Simply ignoring the JCAR suspension and daring someone to sue him is NOT a proper course of action nor is it his only option.
- Bookworm - Tuesday, Nov 20, 07 @ 1:03 pm:
As for the constitutionality issues: if I’m not mistaken, only the judicial branch can determine whether a law is constitutional or not, and until that determination is made, the law remains in effect. (Case in point: the school moment of silence law — even though it was widely believed to be unconstitutional, it was on the books and was, I presume, observed until the recent judge’s ruling.) You cannot simply ignore a law because you THINK it is unconstitutional.
- DC - Tuesday, Nov 20, 07 @ 1:11 pm:
It’s too bad people can’t ignore the Governor because they think he is irrelevant or incompetent.
- Macbeth - Tuesday, Nov 20, 07 @ 1:12 pm:
Bill said: “It is not an emergency if you are healthy or have health insurance. It is if you aren’t and don’t.”
So what? This is like Frank Zappa’s “50/50″ — you either walk out the door and live or you walk out the door and die. Either way, it’s 50/50 odds.”
Which is to say: Bill’s quote and Zappa’s rule are completely meaningless bits of sophistry. (But good blog fodder, I suppose. It’s blog-speak.)
I, too, am uncomfortable with Blago’s ignoring certain laws while enforcing others. Impeachment?
I don’t know. Is this illegal? Or just ineptitude?
Having worked for a state agency — and having dealt with governor’s office on several occasions — I know for a fact that no one in the gov’s office *knows* anything. It’s a culture of referral there because no one wants to make a decision — and those that are high up tend to avoid the hard decisions as long as possible.
- GoBearsss - Tuesday, Nov 20, 07 @ 1:25 pm:
Anon - read the rule that was filed and you can see where they are claiming their authority. It looks pretty solid.
Essentially, HFS can set eligibility classes under the public aid code. The Act you cite is only for those that receive SCHIP funding. Which will no longer be coming to them for parents, hence part of the reason for filing the rule.
- Rich Miller - Tuesday, Nov 20, 07 @ 1:29 pm:
The explanation I just got from the governor’s office is full of holes. I’ll wait and see how they respond to my response.
- Leroy - Tuesday, Nov 20, 07 @ 1:48 pm:
Rich - my point is “the rule of law” is all relative in Illinois - it is just a matter of whose version of the “law” you subscribe to. For every rule *I* want to uphold, there are probably six different lobbyist trying to tear it down, and another eight trying to expand it.
Who really knows right from wrong anymore? The governor? No. The legislature? No. The newspapers? No. The courts? No. Lobbyists? No. Corporations? No. Bloggers? HELL NO.
Everyone has their hand in the till. Sit back and enjoy the ride down…that is what I am doing.
- Bookworm - Tuesday, Nov 20, 07 @ 1:53 pm:
Well then, Leroy, the smart thing to do is to follow the current Illinois Compiled Statutes and Illinois Administrative Code (both available online) until such time as they are amended, repealed or halted by court order. That doesn’t stop anyone from trying to change the laws or rules. It just means that you follow the CURRENT rules until they are actually changed — you don’t just ignore them!
- Rich Miller - Tuesday, Nov 20, 07 @ 1:53 pm:
Leroy, then why bother debating anything?
- Leroy - Tuesday, Nov 20, 07 @ 1:55 pm:
Rich - ‘Zactly!
- Anon - Tuesday, Nov 20, 07 @ 2:07 pm:
Gobearss –
I don’t see anything on point in a quick scan of the Public Aid Code. What authority do they cite in the emergency rulemaking?
- Anonymous - Tuesday, Nov 20, 07 @ 3:10 pm:
Near as I can tell, there are a lot of Republicans on this blog. Do you feel as strongly that Bush should comply with unconstitutional limitations on his power until a court says they are unconstitutional? if so, then Bush’s impeachment should also be on your agenda, because he has asserted repeatedly that he will not be fettered by laws he believes are unconstituional, even if he signed them.
- Yellow Dog Democrat - Tuesday, Nov 20, 07 @ 3:24 pm:
He Makes Ryan Look Like a Saint:
The quotes are taken from the Bill of Particulars laid out in The Declaration of Independence against King George III.
You can read more about the parallels between Rod Blagojevich and King George III here.
- Yellow Dog Democrat - Tuesday, Nov 20, 07 @ 3:29 pm:
Anonymous 3:10 –
Most people posting on this blog aren’t Republicans, most are just thoughtful.
The question of whether Blagojevich can adopt new rules isn’t a Constitutional one, its a question of lawfulness. The existing statutes clearly state that new rules proposed by the Administration are subject to the approval of JCAR.
If Rod doesn’t like it, he can introduce legislation abolishing JCAR, or amending its authority, but he can’t simply choose to ignore the law.
That does, and should, finally set the table for impeachment proceedings.
- Bookworm - Tuesday, Nov 20, 07 @ 3:46 pm:
Anonymous 3:10, if what you’re saying is completely true, then yes, Bush should be impeached. And I consider myself a Republican. But this blog is about state, not federal, politics so the question is moot.
- unclesam - Tuesday, Nov 20, 07 @ 6:46 pm:
YDD,
I advise another reading of the Admin Rules statutes that created and empowers JCAR. JCAR does not “approve” rules. JCAR’s function is to make sure that any proposed rules conform to the standards placed into law (e.g., proper form, statutory authority, etc.).
With that said, the law also states that JCAR is empowered to block/suspend/prohibit any rule from going into effect if the standards set by law are not met and/or if the effect of the rule does not constitute an emergency or would violate the welfare and safety of the public.
In essence, JCAR is advisory in nature (section 100 of statute), but is also a last legislative check on the executive branch in any attempts to usurp the will of the legislature (sections 115 and 125 of statute).
- Another Ex-State Employee - Tuesday, Nov 20, 07 @ 7:06 pm:
This guv’s only priority is to make himself the darling and saviour of the national Democratic party by accomplishing at the state level what they couldn’t do at the natinal level: universal health care. He continues to operate on the delusion he will be drafted by the ideologically bankrupt party at the national convention next year, either as pres (his goal) or the consolation prize of VP if Hillary is the candidate …
- steve schnorf - Tuesday, Nov 20, 07 @ 8:35 pm:
Dog,
or he can go to court to seek to have it declared unconstitutional (his case might be stronger if it was a law he had vetoed and the GA overidden).
BTW, everyone, rules, once adopted, have the force of law.)
- RJW - Wednesday, Nov 21, 07 @ 4:51 pm:
Bill:
I agree with your comment that the Governor has been consistent in his fight for health care. However, what he is doing is outrageous. The General Assembly has also consistently said no to his various proposals. He needs them on board for anything to be accomplished - like how to pay for it.