Quote:
Originally Posted by ogallalabob
The question is not about the use of the veto. Perry had a right to use the veto. If he said nothing and vetoed the funding for this program that would have been clearly ok. Even if he said "gee, this person should not be in charge of any government program or money" and vetoed the program again ok. The Texas legislature can not make how or what he veto's illegal without a constitutional amendment.
The battle is more about the "threat" prior to the veto. The legislature has the ability to pass laws preventing government officials from doing certain actions. The question is whether threatening to do a legal activity falls under how the statute defines coercion. If so, does the legislature have the power to make Perry threatening doing something he has a legal right to do illegal.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/v...oercion-count/
Right. I agree. Interestingly we recently had a SCOTUS decision that argued that one branch of government cannot use its power in a coercive manner. (Disclaimer: IANAL)
This was the Obamacare decision--
National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius which held, in part, that the Medicaid expansion as drafted by Congress was unconstitutional because it was coercive. Congress definitely has the power to determine budgets, but the majority (7-2) on the court argued that Congress could not use this power to say that states could either a) expand Medicaid or b) forfeit their current Medicaid funding. States had no "real choice" because forfeiting funding would be so disruptive that no state would ever choose it.
I'm not sure how the justices find that it's unconstitutional for a law passed by Congress to be coercive to the states. They relied on South Dakota v. Dole, which set a test for whether a Congressional law would be unconstitutional or not, but I haven't read that decision.
Are there any such precedents in Texas? I have no idea. Maybe this case will be that precedent one way or another. But it seems odd to argue, ala ikes, that since Perry has a Constitutional power, that he can use it to coerce public officials and there are no arguments otherwise.
Personally, I disagree with SCOTUS on the issue of Medicaid coercion. I think Congress has the right to withhold federal money from states--although maybe they shouldn't.
I'm less sure about Perry, but he probably has the right to use his veto in a coercive manner. I think that's obviously a bad idea, but lol Texas.
In short, I don't think this is the slam dunk case that conservatives are making it out to be.
