Apparently, the end of America begins in Michigan!

page: 8
86
<< 5  6  7   >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 11 2011 @ 07:38 PM
link   
reply to post by mikellmikell
 


I sense you feel you know the real problem with Benton Harbor but you're holding back for some reason and keeping us in the dark. Is there some correlation wit Detroit youre trying to make. like with a tendency for corruption and all sorts of 'shines at the top?
Dont keep us in suspense! Are you implying connecting this tendency to others at some higher levels of govt?




posted on Mar, 11 2011 @ 07:38 PM
link   
Dup post
edit on 11-3-2011 by FriedrichNeecher because: dup post



posted on Mar, 11 2011 @ 07:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by LifeInDeath
I think it can be argued that this violates several provisions in the Constitution, like Equal Protection and Universal Suffrage which gives everyone the right to have their votes heard. If you vote for someone, and they are elected, they can't be removed from office without proper due process. This eliminates what has always been considered due process in these matters - namely, impeachment proceedings.

Besides, all of that is moot in light of the fact that this law violates the


Equal protection from prosecution. When someone removes an official that you elected, then they are not prosecuting you, the person that elected him, they are prosecuting the official. And, if you look at my previous statements, I stated that the only thing that may concern it is the state constitution.


Michigan Constitution:


ARTICLE VII
Local Government

§ 1 Counties; corporate character, powers and immunities.

Sec. 1. Each organized county shall be a body corporate with powers and immunities provided by law.

§ 2 County charters.

Sec. 2. Any county may frame, adopt, amend or repeal a county charter in a manner and with powers and limitations to be provided by general law, which shall among other things provide for the election of a charter commission. The law may permit the organization of county government in form different from that set forth in this constitution and shall limit the rate of ad valorem property taxation for county purposes, and restrict the powers of charter counties to borrow money and contract debts. Each charter county is hereby granted power to
levy other taxes for county purposes subject to limitations and prohibitions set forth in this constitution or law. Subject to law, a county charter may authorize the county through its regularly constituted authority to adopt resolutions and ordinances relating to its concerns.

Election of charter commissions.
The board of supervisors by a majority vote of its members may, and upon petition of five percent of the electors shall, place upon the ballot the question of electing a commission to frame a charter.

Approval of electors.
No county charter shall be adopted, amended or repealed until approved by a majority of electors voting on the question.


The Michigan Constitution gives local municipalities, counties, etc. the right to elect their own governments, the new law takes this power away from them in violation of of the Michigan Constitution, it seems to me. This is a violation of at the very least Michigan law, if not Federal law.


Umm………That isn’t talking about elected officials……….. The charter commission is referring to the elected group of people that can draft, or change the charter of that municipality?

Those are the people that decide how the local government is organized. Basically, If 5 percent of the people state that they want to elect a charter commission to change their county/city charter, then they can set that process in motion. Once you get enough votes to elect a charter commission, then the commission can draft a new, or revised charter that can be voted on by the electors. If they vote yes, then the new, or revised charter is the law of the land.

And in your own quoted text, it states…….. “The law may permit the organization of county government in form different from that set forth in this constitution”

So, it is basically stating that you could even have a charter commission set up a charter for a form of government where you didn’t even vote on local officials, or even have any local officials, if your voters voted for such a system.

All in all, that quoted text doesn’t even have anything to do with the situation. I don’t see it stating that the local officials are immune to any state or federal laws. With your interpretation, then a local official could start shooting people, and you couldn’t remove him from office, because it would be undercutting the will of the electors if you remove him before his term is up. And clearly that would be illogical.



posted on Mar, 14 2011 @ 01:08 PM
link   
another thread about this, now closed as it is a duplicate
www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Mar, 14 2011 @ 01:14 PM
link   
reply to post by DontTreadOnMe
 

Thanks for clearing that up for me and any others over there floundering around.

If it is all the same to you I will just re-copy my response since I am a little tired and sick of fighting. I think I am going to spend some quality time playing with the rabbits now....
__________________________________________________________________

There was mention of this tactic at work over a year ago with plans to go strongly for the Governorship of each State -recognizing the Governors have extraordinary power and can even get rid of officials duly elected by the people in times of financial emergency.

I can't figure out why people do not recognize what this could mean to the democracy of the United States of America and stop it where it stands.

Where is the outrage?
I just don't get it.

We will be the United Socialist Republic of America.
We won't even have to move.



posted on Mar, 14 2011 @ 04:14 PM
link   
WTF- this is another violation of the US constitution, bill of rights and, declaration of independence. i wonder who the f*ck would have voted for thsi idiot, and mor eimportantly i bet you no one in Michigan knows about this either. this aint right man


p.s y do a lot of people hate the us constitution/ mock it so much? is it because they dont have one? look the original Constitution gave power to the people but the presidents soon after wilson started to strip away all of the amendments with "emergency laws".



posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 12:52 AM
link   
I'm a Michigan native (though I'm not living in Michigan at the moment) and I was outraged when I first read about all of this. It's an absurd bill. Governor Snyder isn't even trying to be subtle about this grab for power. I honestly cannot even comprehend the motivations behind it. One must assume that the man went into politics because of some belief in the ideals of America. Then again, I'd like to think that about most politicians, yet it still seems that the ideals that this country was founded on have been crumbling for a long, long time now.

What really gets me, though, is the apathy. Many of the people I've spoken too simply do not care about this. This is even true of many people in Michigan! I get responses like "this is why I don't watch the news" or "it's less stressful just to remain ignorant of these things." Other people say things like "I don't pay attention to most of this stuff because the media distorts it so much that we never get to hear the whole story anyway." Well, if what we hear is even a fraction of the truth (it is, tragically), we really are in trouble. This should be causing an uproar. The issue is hardly causing a grumble. None of the people I've talked to about the bill think that it is a good idea. In fact, they agree that it's one of the worst things that has happened in Michigan in quite some time. But beyond that...they shrug their shoulders and move on.

I'm heading to Lansing this weekend to do some protesting. I suppose I'll make some phone calls and write some emails/letters, as well. I'm not sure good it will do, but it's something. If half of those in Michigan who felt the same acted similarly, there might be a chance of our discontent really being heard. Then again, when the issue in question is something so overtly malicious (let's be honest--Snyder cannot honestly believe that even a small fraction of the public his fully behind him on this one), I have to wonder if every man, woman, and child in Michigan could shout loud enough to stop it.

Time will tell, I suppose. I hope this is just an isolated event and not the start of a trend (sadly, I suppose this could hardly be called the "start" of this authoritarian government action). Either way, I'll fight it.

"Till shade is gone, till water is gone, into the Shadow with teeth bared, screaming defiance with the last breath, to spit into Sightblinder's eye on the Last Day." ...or some variant of that, haha.

Good luck to all of those living in Michigan right now.

Also: First post on ATS!



posted on Mar, 16 2011 @ 02:06 AM
link   
I am in Michigan and this is true. She doesn't distort the truth at all. She just presents it in a way that you aren't used to after decades of media sugarcoating and playing down the facts. It's nice we finally have MSNBC to just tell things the way they are. I might add this story was also posted on www.cbsnews.com...

For all the dumbfounded, people THIS is what Republicans DO. They have ALWAYS taken away freedoms from the people and handed them to the rich. How long will it take you to understand this? They claim they are for smaller government and less taxes yet THEY ALWAYS RAISE TAXES or create situations where we have to pay more taxes. Because of this 2/3rds of corporations do not pay federal taxes at all. I am saying this because Snyder also just raised taxes on everyone, particularly the elderly. Before that Republican Engler raised taxes while George Bush senior was raising taxes.
edit on 16-3-2011 by TGreenman because: added the link
edit on 16-3-2011 by TGreenman because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 16 2011 @ 12:18 PM
link   
reply to post by TGreenman
 


I have to say, I think that making this a party-based issue simply distracts from the real problems. I'm almost starting to feel like the bipartisan political structure of this country has served as little more than a distraction while people from *both* parties claim more and more power for the government.

Take, for example, Obama's recent executive order stating the prisoners can be held indefinitely in Guantanamo bay--even after they've been acquitted.

It would be nice to say that one party or the other is really trying to take authoritarian control while the other is at least a little less malicious, but I believe that that view is a fantasy, and a harmful one at that. It's the game as a whole that's broken, not just one of the teams. As long as we're focusing on the republican-democrat interplay, we're distracted from the fact that the government we have right now is constantly grabbing for more and more control over our lives under the pretense of "protection" or other similarly vague notions. All the while, we get so upset because the republicans did this or the democrats did that--that is, if we care enough to follow the decisions of those in charge at all.

Again, I wish it were possible to ascribe the problems of this country to one political party, but I really do not think that it is.
edit on 16-3-2011 by backwardluminary because: Grammar edits.



posted on Mar, 16 2011 @ 02:15 PM
link   
reply to post by backwardluminary
 


I agree completely. Two sides of the same coin. I don't give a damn what party Snyder is affiliated with, he's doing terrible things and making horrible decisions. It's apparent what the motive is here. and if we look for a money trail, I'm sure we can find one.



posted on Mar, 20 2011 @ 01:59 PM
link   
reply to post by SaturnFX
 


I must say Saturn, that was poignant, and amusing. I couldn't have said it better. Thank you very much.



posted on Mar, 29 2011 @ 11:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mr Tranny
How come I don’t see anything wrong with it? It is just putting local governments under the same rules as businesses.



If a business files bankrupt, then they send in people that can fire people, replace people, renegotiate agreements, void agreements. Anything that may make the company viable. Or even consider it a lost cause, chop the company up and sell it’s assets.

When a business goes on receivership, it doesn’t mater how many shareholders elected the CEO to his position, if the person appointed to go through the company sees that the CEO is the problem, then he is gone.

This is just along the lines of the same thing for cities/counties.

Currently…. When a city/county goes insolvent, the only thing the state can do is give it more money. They can’t force any of the people out that caused the insolvency!

And insolvency doesn’t just happen on it’s own. The people running the county/city isn’t just helpless victims. They are usually the cause of the problem. But people keep electing them because they like what they do, even if the county/city doesn’t have the money to actually pay for it.

Like a local county here. A local developer had some land in a flood plane that he couldn’t sell. He got his friends in the school board to convince the rest of the people that they needed a new, bigger, better baseball field!!!!!!! So…… guess which land they bought to make the baseball field. You guessed it. How much did they pay for it? Way more than he could get if he sold it for home development. By the end of it, with construction and everything, they was in pretty deep. Come this year, they was facing a million and some shortfall……… Ow wait……. How much did that new baseball field cost?.......... Ow……. Now I get it………

The point is, when you have overgenerous contracts, there is usually someone on the inside that makes that possible. If you void the contract, then the person on the inside will just reinstate it. If you just get rid of the person then the contract is still in force. You have to ditch the contracts, and the people who are awarding them.

No mater how may people elected someone to a government position, if he is the cause of the financial shortfall, then he has to go. There is a breaking point where business can’t go on as usual. We are reaching that breaking point.
edit on 10-3-2011 by Mr Tranny because: (no reason given)


I know many teachers and school employees here in Michigan. The schools spend money according to the previous years funding. If they don't spend it they don't get it. They have to have their expense reports in by a certain time. Lately the state wants these in before they decide how much money schools will get per student. Basically causing schools to sign contracts for supplies and employees without knowing the exact amount of money they are getting. These schools are not going bankrupt because of their own lavish spending habits; Gov Snyder is REDUCING the amount of funding that they get. He is THE CAUSE of the the PROBLEM and his solution is to break up the unions and fire elected officials. Give me an f'n break. This guy is obviously only working for the good of companies.



posted on Mar, 29 2011 @ 12:17 PM
link   
Smells to me like a test-case....just to see how it goes so other states can follow. You can bet your sweet ass that this comes from somewhere in Washington and is a federal initiative. If you'd ask me....when this 'economic/financial" legislation is in place it will make a lasting marshal-law more...... complete?.
edit on 29-3-2011 by zatara because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 4 2011 @ 12:08 AM
link   
One thing that is not being considered here is immanent domain laws. A city or town or state can take your private property under immanent domain, but they have to show good cause under the law.
If a Corporation has taken over the job of the elected body of a city or town- presumably they can do the same, as they have also taken over that responsibility.

So God forbid if your house is sitting on some resource (coal shale to water) that a Corporation may want it's hands on. Or in a prime location that they just want. They could even raise the property taxes and force people off the land.

Corporations don't have to answer to anyone. At least your municipality does- and you can vote them off. You can't vote anyone out of a corporation.



posted on Apr, 30 2011 @ 06:28 PM
link   
Here's a couple of more tidbits.
The law

Some more local info

Anybody can PM me if they want I'm only 6 blocks from city hall and about the same to where Harris lives





new topics
top topics
 
86
<< 5  6  7   >>

log in

join