Current reports out of New York are that Eliot Spitzer is expected to resign his office soon, though it’s unclear exactly when. Lt. Gov. David Paterson and his staff reportedly have “begun laying the groundwork” for the transition.
Apparently, under the NY Constitution, Paterson will actually become the Governor upon Spitzer’s resignation (in MA, in contrast, the Gov’s resignation results in the Lt. Gov. becoming “Acting Governor”). There is apparently no provision in the NY Constitution to elect or appoint a new Lt. Gov., so Republican Senate President Joseph Bruno would take over the Lt. Gov.’s duties, which would include acting as Governor when Paterson is out of state. That should be interesting.
UPDATE: As of 2 pm, the NYT story has been updated to say that Lt. Gov. Paterson is “in limbo,” along with everyone else in NY politics, and that he “had not taken steps to move forward with a transition.”
There’s an interesting discussion of the matter at Jspot.org, a blog about Judaism and social justice. It’s currently the top item on there, though since it may move down then page, the discussion can be found directly here.
<
p>Full disclosure: I’m one of the commenters there, and I periodically write for the blog.
<
p>[/shameless self promotion]
David: You put “Acting Governor” in quotation marks. Can you find a reference to the lieutenant governor’s becoming the “acting governor” in the Massachusetts constitution? (You can’t.) Or any reference suggesting that the lieutenant governor doesn’t become the full, actual governor? (Perhaps.) This is a very interesting point – I’m not just nitpicking.
Governor Swift.
More specifically, Act III.
<
p>You can see the legislation to change the current law so MA would have an actual Governor rather than an “acting” Governor here
<
p>I think the problem is that there is no real provision for filling the Governor’s chair if said Governor vacates office (willfully or otherwise.) Thus, as the MA Constitution does not explicitly say that the Lt. Gov becomes Gov the Lt. Gov therefore becomes “Acting Governor.”
I do believe the legislation is unnecessary. If someone were to take the time to research this – I’m grading papers, thank you very much – I believe you would find that no one was ever referred to as the “acting governor” before Paul Cellucci succeeded Bill Weld. I don’t think anyone ever called Frank Sargent the “acting governor” after John Volpe left to become secretary of transportation.
<
p>When I was at the Boston Phoenix, we did do some research on this at one time, and we made it a matter of house style to refer to Cellucci and then Jane Swift as the governor, period. I seem to recall we may have even explained it in an editorial, though good luck finding it online. The language used in the Massachusetts and federal constitutions regarding the lieutenant governor and vice president is not all that different, and John Adams had a hand in writing both.
Here is the 2001 Boston Phoenix editorial explaining why we were going to refer to Swift as “Gov. Swift.” As far as our reasoning, well, my memory’s pretty good. You’ll have to scroll down a bit – it’s the second item.
This bill-signing from May 1969, after Volpe’s departure, indicates the formal usage at the time.
<
p>Oddly enough, Volpe was the first governor to leave office in over 70 years, so the usage may have been a little rusty.
Google “acting governor” sargent massachusetts
and you get dozens of hits from other bill signings, executive orders, etc.
<
p>In fact, if you look here you can see a list of all past governors, including past acting governors the state has ever seen. I counted at least four.
I’ve got no problem calling a Lt. Gov that moves to the Governors chair for whatever reasons Governor.
<
p>But since it is now established that this has indeed been going on since the early days of the Commonwealth (the second Governor was in fact an Acting Governor, Thomas Cushing) does this change the need for the legislation in your mind?
Here’s the relevant language from the Constitution:
<
p>
<
p>This is the text that generates the term “acting governor,” because the constitution does not distinguish between the “temporary” acting governorship (when the Gov is out of the state) from the “permanent” acting governorship (due to death or resignation). From time to time, a law will be passed when the Governor is out-of-state; when the Lt. Governor or other constitutional officer signs these bills, they will list themselves as the “Acting Governor.”
<
p>The “Manual for the General Court,” which is the historical resource for Massachusetts governance, uses the term Acting Governor for those Lt. Governors who were in office when the state found itself permanently without a governor; but those LG’s don’t show up in the list of governors.
<
p>Until the 1918 convention amendments, the council would take over in case there was a vacancy in both offices. This was pretty rare because the term was just one year long. It only happened for ten days in 1800, when the Lt. Governor died on 5/20 and the newly elected Governor took office on 5/30.
<
p>After the 1918 convention, the regular succession of constitutional officers came into play (Amendment LV) and the terms became two years (Amendment LXIV).
<
p>This was actually a major feature of the Massachusetts Constitution as written by John Adams. Because of the history of royal governors serving at the pleasure of the king, not of the people, Adams and his fellow framers deliberately wrote the Massachusetts Constitution so that there was only one way of becoming Governor: to be elected by the people. That’s why the Lt. Governor doesn’t “become” Governor; he or she hasn’t been elected to that position.
<
p>As we all know, the U.S. Constitution does things differently, in that the vice-president becomes president. Actually, if you read Article II, Section 1, you find the following text:
This was changed by the 25th Amendment in 1967
<
p>From what I recall of my history, when the first presidential vacancy came about upon the death of President Harrison, no one was quite sure what to do. Vice-President Tyler started calling himself President and this set the precedent for future VP’s to “become” President.
Patrick: Your point that Tyler simply grabbed the title of president, and that it wasn’t officially fixed until 1967, is obviously relevant to the lieutenant governor/acting governor/governor discussion. We’re not going to get any closer. And I think your timeline supports my view that it was silly and unnecessary to refer to Cellucci and Swift as “acting” governors.
that I know whereof I speak, because I worked in the Office of the Governor’s Legal Counsel at the time Weld resigned, and the subject was of no small interest. I respect the view that the Phoenix came to (that the “Acting” thing was unnecessary), since as a practical matter once the elected Gov resigns there is no difference between the powers that the elected Gov had before resigning and the powers that the LtGov/Acting Gov has after. Legally, however, I don’t think that view is correct.
I read this somewhere today, though I forget where, so I can’t give proper credit.
<
p>When undertaking one of these public-official prosecutions, a good “get” for the prosecution is voluntary resignation from said public office.
<
p>If what I heard on NPR this morning was accurate, Spitzer at least has the potential for being hit with Mann Act and mail/wire fraud. In other words, he is at some risk of actually doing time.
<
p>His ability to resign voluntarily is one of the few cards he has to play. If he plays it prematurely, he gives up what little leverage he has.
<
p>I’ll bet he resigns after awhile as part of a deal with the US atty.
<
p>On the other hand, Spitzer has/had a well-earned reputation for forgoing the easy “get” and going all out for the humiliating public destruction of the “badguy” he was targeting. “I’m a bleeping steamroller” and all that. It could be that what goes around comes around, and no deal will be in the offing, in which case he may be in for a tough time.
a valuable card? i don’t quite follow how he has any leverage with that.
The goals of a prosecutor with a defendant in the crosshairs, when that defendant is a prominent public official:
<
p>1. Resignation;
<
p>2. Incarceration.
<
p>Resignation is a goal for the same reason that Spitzer once forced Dick Grasso or Hank Greenberg to resign from their prominent private offices. Because they count it is a “win.”
<
p>So, essentially, Spitzer has two things that the prosecutor might want: the governor’s office and time to spend as a guest of the government. It behooves him to hold on to the former until such time as he can trade it for less of the latter.
<
p>In other words, a plea deal in which he gets some reduced, or suspended, jail time, because he agrees to resign voluntarily.
<
p>If he resigns too fast, then he has spent his leverage, and the US Atty has not much to gain by agreeing to less jail time.
I think he is spot on.
the mechanics of your explanation makes sense, but i honestly don’t understand deeming a forced resignation sooner rather than later a “win” for the US atty. a resignation is inevitable, since spitzer is now a lame duck. why should the atty give anything away at all in exchange for what we know is going to happen? i guess i just don’t understand the atty’s priorities here.
Clinton might well have resigned in ’99. Or Larry Craig for goodness sake. Sometimes they decide to soldier on.
Leverage, leverage, leverage (to paraphrase that old real estate agent bromide). Dan had that on the head here for stalling the resignation until a deal is made to avoid prosecution:
<
p>http://medianation.blogspot.co…
<
p>Think Dan has that one figured out pretty well.
Personally I wouldn’t vote to re-elect someone if they were an adulterer since it just shows a part of their character that in my view is a huge flaw for a variety of reasons I won’t get into. But I do not feel politicians caught with their pants down should be forced to resign. This is different though.
<
p>Since it is not just consensual extramarital sex but an illegal transaction and the Governor could have criminal investigations against him it makes a lot more sense for him to resign. The Clinton example should show us that a defiant stance will lead to gridlock and cripple the government. I do not meant to say that Clinton was the hero or the villain of that particular era but only to say that Clinton in effect was made a lame duck by the scandal and the government became preoccupied with investigating him rather than getting the job done.
<
p>To avoid this kind of gridlock in microcosm within NY it would be best for Spitzer to resign, let his hand picked LG continue his legacy for the good of the state, and take away any ammo the NY GOP has to use against the Democrats. He needs to take away Bruno’s majority and the only way he can do that is by resigning to make the election about Bruno and not about him and to give his replacement time to actually govern.
<
p>Also Ive been reading a lot about Paterson and he seems like a really interesting and upstanding guy who has endured a lot of difficulties in life due to his disability and was able to overcome them quite well. He shares my fathers defiant attitude about not being treated like a special class of citizen but of seeking normalcy and independence and I find that very admirable. Now hopefully he has no prevalence for hookers so we can get to business.
You mean to tell me that you refuse on moral grounds to vote for a philanderer but you have no problem actively supporting a convicted – drunk driver?
The battalions of Kennedy’s come to mind. Lyndon Johnson.
<
p>Bill Clinton. I’ve heard rumors that Hillary wasn’t beyond seeking alternative companionship when she was younger.
FDR’s wife had a close personal friend. Grant was a big drinker. Jefferson enjoyed the company of many women as did Ben Franklin (Franklin also enjoyed port immensely) and George Washington. Eisenhower was quite fond of his driver and Chruchill took a taste now and then.
Who could drink you under the table!
Could outconsume
Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel,
And Wittgenstein was a beery swine
Who was jusht as shloshed as Schlegel.
about the raising of the wrist, Socrates himself was positively pissed.
Perhaps. I must now watch Live at the Hollywood Bowl to prove or disprove this theory. My wife is always thrilled when I get an excuse to putthe Python on the Netflix list…
I was calling either hypocrisy or poor ethics when someone states they are unwilling to vote for someone that hires a hooker but feels perfectly comfortable actively supporting a DUI for elected office.
I love gridlock. Republicans can’t be fiscally irresponsible with reckless tax cuts; Democrats can’t be fiscally irresponsible with reckless spending. Best of both worlds.
<
p>Gingrich raised Clinton’s game, and the country was well-served by it. There is no welfare reform, or balanced budget, from a Democratic Congress. Instead, there would have been increased spending on AFDC.
For awhile I thought the best government would be a moderate Republican with a Democratic Congress like Ike’s, Nixon’s, or Fords administration.
<
p>But you are correct that a the Clinton-Gingrich years were arguably better since the GOP congress kept spending down without being able to pass its radical economic or social agenda.
<
p>Also Galluccio was never convicted of any crime so piss off.
I cannot believe that you are reopening the Galluccio thing. I will just refer you back to this post and let it go at that.
I didnt some other jackass did and I responded to him
look at the posts and the article before you start calling people names.
<
p>On the OUI “conviction” question I refer you to the esteemed Boston Globe (among many other areas, including the court dockets) which states
<
p>
<
p>Perhaps instead of responding like a child you could respond to the question raised: How do you justify your stance of never voting for philanderers but actively supporting drunk drivers?