Their View: Governor vetoes: A consti...

Their View: Governor vetoes: A constitutional check on higher taxes and excessive spending

There are 18 comments on the Las Cruces Sun-News story from Jun 20, 2011, titled Their View: Governor vetoes: A constitutional check on higher taxes and excessive spending. In it, Las Cruces Sun-News reports that:

There has been considerable interest from a few Democratic legislators regarding "line-item" or partial vetoes by Gov.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Las Cruces Sun-News.

LC Today

Brighton, MI

#1 Jun 20, 2011
Thank you, Mr. May. As usual, whether it be on the local, state or federal levels, Democrats would spend this state into total oblivion as long as they can fund their little pet projects, and to hell with the taxpayers.
Tomasco

Elgin, AZ

#2 Jun 20, 2011
Good for Gov Martinez! Hopefully her efforts will help turn New Mexico into a RED state instead of the embarrassing BLUE we now are.
Ex- El Paso resident

Las Cruces, NM

#3 Jun 20, 2011
Progressive spend and tax liberal Democrates will bring the State and this conntry to its demise.

Here is another great example.

Hey NM legislature,

Look at Greece!!!!!

Thank god for the line item veto.

Here is an example of New Mexico party polictics at its worst.

Please post who these "few" Democrates are pushing this so we can grant them early retirement from State Government.
Think about it

Albuquerque, NM

#4 Jun 20, 2011
Thank you for the well written article.

Since: Sep 08

Albuquerque, NM

#5 Jun 20, 2011
"Their claim is flatly false that the vetoes are unconstitutional and unprecedented,"

I wonder how he knows this.

Should read: "...she trimmed $100,000 in WHAT SHE CLAIMS excessive spending..."

"Gov. Martinez demonstrated her commitment to instilling badly needed fiscal discipline to state finances" Then why does she allow the State Police to waste time and money with Sec of State Duran's ridiculous defense of her absurd 'possible voter fraud' claims.
Another

Santa Fe, NM

#7 Jun 20, 2011
Morton D wrote:
<quoted text>

.
more lies and slander

lie: how Obama swept the proven voter intimidation (on video, no less) by the Black Panthers under the rug, and tried to protect ACORN and their vote fraud,

Slander: Liberals/socialists/progressiv es are the enemy of our Constitution, our Republic, and the people of the United States.
Cato

Albuquerque, NM

#9 Jun 20, 2011
Martinez seems to be following the lead of Republican governors in other states who seem to think they are above the law and who are sabotaging the basic constitutional principle of the separation of powers. Ultimately, their actions will lead to an erosion of freedom, democracy, and good government as the input of others is ignored. They will find, as have the Democrats, that the reckoning will be all the more drastic as they suppress the input of others.

These governors are following in the footsteps of President Bush, who attached codicils when he signed laws saying what he would not enforce, and a Republican Congress, which has sought and continues to seek to undermine an independent judiciary.
ORLY

Littleton, CO

#11 Jun 20, 2011
Another wrote:
<quoted text>
more lies and slander
lie: how Obama swept the proven voter intimidation (on video, no less) by the Black Panthers under the rug, and tried to protect ACORN and their vote fraud,
Slander: Liberals/socialists/progressiv es are the enemy of our Constitution, our Republic, and the people of the United States.
here is your lie in actuality:


I'm not going to go into the slander because it's too vast to document in a nice short video that has been COVERED UP by the justice department lol what irony!
Tin

Santa Fe, NM

#12 Jun 20, 2011
Morton D wrote:
<quoted text>

enemies of the freedom, the Constitution, and the people of the United States.
foil hat brigade
Think about it

Albuquerque, NM

#13 Jun 20, 2011
Cato wrote:
Martinez seems to be following the lead of Republican governors in other states who seem to think they are above the law and who are sabotaging the basic constitutional principle of the separation of powers. Ultimately, their actions will lead to an erosion of freedom, democracy, and good government as the input of others is ignored. They will find, as have the Democrats, that the reckoning will be all the more drastic as they suppress the input of others.
These governors are following in the footsteps of President Bush, who attached codicils when he signed laws saying what he would not enforce, and a Republican Congress, which has sought and continues to seek to undermine an independent judiciary.
Martinez did not put herself above the law. She veto'd portions of the legislation. Similar actions had been taken by governors in the past without any judicial involvement.

As with a presidential veto, Martinez's veto could, and still can, be overturned by the NM Legislature. This is the process that is in place within our government.

A special session was being planned for August, haven't heard about it for a while. The unemployment tax was to be on the special session agenda.

Have you heard if the special session will take place?
And

Santa Fe, NM

#14 Jun 20, 2011
ORLY wrote:
<quoted text>
here is your lie in actuality: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =neGbKHyGuHUXX
I'm not going to go into the slander because it's too vast to document in a nice short video that has been COVERED UP by the justice department lol what irony!
your point is what? Who hasn't seen this little theatrical piece? Investigated - no federal action needed or taken.
The Bush administration's Justice Department -- not the Obama administration -- made the decision not to pursue criminal charges against members of the New Black Panther Party for alleged voter intimidation at a polling center in Philadelphia in 2008.
The Obama administration successfully obtained default judgment against King Samir Shabazz, a member of the New Black Panther Party who was carrying a nightstick outside the Philadelphia polling center.
The Bush administration DOJ chose not to pursue similar charges against members of the Minutemen, one of whom allegedly carried a weapon while harassing Hispanic voters in Arizona in 2006.
No voters have come forward to claim that they were intimidated and did not vote because of the New Black Panthers' presence outside the polling center.
The Republican vice chairwoman of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, which is currently investigating the Justice Department's decision, has said that the case is "very small potatoes" and that it has been surrounded by "overheated rhetoric filled with insinuations and unsubstantiated charges." She has further stated that the investigation has not "served the interests of the Commission" and that the DOJ has given a "plausible argument" for not pursuing additional charges in the case.
nah

Albuquerque, NM

#15 Jun 20, 2011
Cato wrote:
Martinez seems to be following the lead of Republican governors in other states who seem to think they are above the law and who are sabotaging the basic constitutional principle of the separation of powers. Ultimately, their actions will lead to an erosion of freedom, democracy, and good government as the input of others is ignored. They will find, as have the Democrats, that the reckoning will be all the more drastic as they suppress the input of others.
These governors are following in the footsteps of President Bush, who attached codicils when he signed laws saying what he would not enforce, and a Republican Congress, which has sought and continues to seek to undermine an independent judiciary.
She's following Odumber's lead in his unilateral declaration of war on Libya and his refusal to enforce immigration laws.
Cato

Albuquerque, NM

#16 Jun 20, 2011
Think about it wrote:
<quoted text>
Martinez did not put herself above the law. She veto'd portions of the legislation. Similar actions had been taken by governors in the past without any judicial involvement.
As with a presidential veto, Martinez's veto could, and still can, be overturned by the NM Legislature. This is the process that is in place within our government.
A special session was being planned for August, haven't heard about it for a while. The unemployment tax was to be on the special session agenda.
Have you heard if the special session will take place?
The problem with the veto under discussion is that it seems to violate the law. So we will see what the judiciary says. Martinez has also gone beyond her authority in personnel matters. She nowhere near as bad as Walker and the Republican legislature in Minnesota (I refer not to what they did but to how they did it).

I don't like the line veto because I believe it does more harm to the legislative process than good by cutting waste, but the thing is unfortunately legal in NM and elsewhere.
Everything in moderation

Albuquerque, NM

#17 Jun 20, 2011
LC Today wrote:
Thank you, Mr. May. As usual, whether it be on the local, state or federal levels, Democrats would spend this state into total oblivion as long as they can fund their little pet projects, and to hell with the taxpayers.
It's not about spending, it's about the powers granted under the state Constitution to the governor and the Legislature. If Martinez had used her line-item veto to strike the entire appropriation for affordable housing, that would have been fine. What she can't do is change the appropriation. If the governor can change all of the budget numbers to whatever they want at signing, there would be no point in having a Legislature. And no, it's not something that has been done by other governors.
traveler1550

Eastpointe, MI

#18 Jun 21, 2011
PlacitasRoy wrote:
"Their claim is flatly false that the vetoes are unconstitutional and unprecedented,"
I wonder how he knows this.
Should read: "...she trimmed $100,000 in WHAT SHE CLAIMS excessive spending..."
"Gov. Martinez demonstrated her commitment to instilling badly needed fiscal discipline to state finances" Then why does she allow the State Police to waste time and money with Sec of State Duran's ridiculous defense of her absurd 'possible voter fraud' claims.
In a democracy shouldn't the voter roles be correct? Shouldn't any irregularities no matter how minor be corrected? Shouldn't everyone have a vote that counts and not have their votes nullified by an improper one? Or would you rather have elections like Chavez or the former soviet union used to have? An irregularity doesn't mean illegal so it doesn't mean charges have to be filed like you like to go off tangent on.
traveler1550

Eastpointe, MI

#19 Jun 21, 2011
PlacitasRoy wrote:
"Their claim is flatly false that the vetoes are unconstitutional and unprecedented,"
I wonder how he knows this.
Should read: "...she trimmed $100,000 in WHAT SHE CLAIMS excessive spending..."
"Gov. Martinez demonstrated her commitment to instilling badly needed fiscal discipline to state finances" Then why does she allow the State Police to waste time and money with Sec of State Duran's ridiculous defense of her absurd 'possible voter fraud' claims.
"Their claim is flatly false that the vetoes are unconstitutional and unprecedented,"

I wonder how he knows this

Maybe it's because he researches and doesn't spend all day every day making 14,200 post to topix
traveler1550

Eastpointe, MI

#20 Jun 21, 2011
Cato wrote:
Martinez seems to be following the lead of Republican governors in other states who seem to think they are above the law and who are sabotaging the basic constitutional principle of the separation of powers. Ultimately, their actions will lead to an erosion of freedom, democracy, and good government as the input of others is ignored. They will find, as have the Democrats, that the reckoning will be all the more drastic as they suppress the input of others.
These governors are following in the footsteps of President Bush, who attached codicils when he signed laws saying what he would not enforce, and a Republican Congress, which has sought and continues to seek to undermine an independent judiciary.
Bet if the judiciary was all liberal let the convicts go you wouldn't be saying a thing. It was the ACLU and liberal judges that caused the Tuscon massacre. The nut job had been reported as unstable and dangerous many times but he couldn't be brought in for evaluation because he hadn't committed a crime YET!! If he had been evaluated he couldn't have bought the weapon because he would have been in the FBI database.
What

Santa Fe, NM

#21 Jun 21, 2011
traveler1550 wrote:
<quoted text>
Bet if the judiciary was all liberal let the convicts go you wouldn't be saying a thing. It was the ACLU and liberal judges that caused the Tuscon massacre. The nut job had been reported as unstable and dangerous many times but he couldn't be brought in for evaluation because he hadn't committed a crime YET!! If he had been evaluated he couldn't have bought the weapon because he would have been in the FBI database.
a sick lie

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Bill Richardson Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Governor's board picks ignored law (Dec '08) Sun Banu Telliman 13
News Freed US student - brutalised' by North Korea c... Jun '17 Ronald 30
News Hillary is best candidate for U.S. president (Feb '08) Jul '16 Responsibilty 938
News Once again, Hispanics were considered for VP. O... (Jul '16) Jul '16 All For Show 1
News Republican Martinez claims NM governor's seat (Nov '10) Jul '16 Lorenzo 247
News 'Double dippers' fought legislation (May '09) Apr '16 concerned citizen 56
News Who still takes global warming seriously? (Jan '10) Jan '16 Brian_G 30,923
More from around the web