LITEROTICA PODCAST
LIT CAMS (200 Free Tokens)ADULT TOYSVOD MOVIES

"Emergency Manager Law" in Michigan

TexasWife25

TexasWife25

Porn Buddy
Joined
Dec 6, 2011
Posts
6,951
While Im not convinced this issue is a racial one, I do find it interesting that nearly 50% of African Americans in Michigan will basically have lost the right to vote, or rather they can vote, but it just wont count for anything. Do you think the "emergency manager law" is unconstitutional?


"Four Michigan cities are controlled by emergency managers. All have populations that are mostly black. If Detroit joins them, 49.7 percent of the state’s black residents would live under city governments in which they have little say..."



http://www.freep.com/article/20111203/NEWS01/112030394/Groups-gather-to-fight-emergency-manager-law

http://www.mlive.com/news/flint/index.ssf/2011/12/group_claims_emergency_manager.html
 
TexasWife25 said:
I do find it interesting that nearly 50% of African Americans in Michigan will basically have lost the right to vote, or rather they can vote, but it just wont count for anything.


If Detroit joins them, 49.7 percent of the state’s black residents would live under city governments in which they have little say..."
Click to expand...



Nothing but propaganda.

It has nothing to do with voting. It's about regaining control of broken and corrupt systems.
 
jaF0 said:
Nothing but propaganda.

It has nothing to do with voting. It's about regaining control of broken and corrupt systems.
Click to expand...

So you would be ok if you voted for a representative and someone came in, threw out your vote, and basically dismantled your local government, for an indefinite period of time?
 
they are broke....the elected officials broke them...gotta get somebody to fix it, its an emergency...you want them to vote for another idiot to fix it?
 
chillywilly2 said:
they are broke....the elected officials broke them...gotta get somebody to fix it, its an emergency...you want them to vote for another idiot to fix it?
Click to expand...

I fully agree, they are broke and struggling..
so... you agree, anytime there is an emergency you should be able to basically abolish democracy?
What about the state? Would it be ok for the federal government to come in and get rid of the governor because they felt the whole state was being mismanaged?
 
The whole country needs work...get on with it before you drag the rest of the world down too
 
TexasWife25 said:
I fully agree, they are broke and struggling..
so... you agree, anytime there is an emergency you should be able to basically abolish democracy?
What about the state? Would it be ok for the federal government to come in and get rid of the governor because they felt the whole state was being mismanaged?
Click to expand...
I asked the exact quesiton here a while ago.

Apparently, states' rights are holy, whereas other forms of local autonomy is at the mercy of the Centralized Government.

Altenatively, IOKIYAR.
 
chillywilly2 said:
The whole country needs work...get on with it before you drag the rest of the world down too
Click to expand...

Get on with what?
Your right, the whole country is struggling...
so if someone came into your city and did this you would be ok with it?

They are basically taking over the entire state of Michigan one city at a time.
So I'm not really sure what the difference is, might as well just have the president step in, abolish all elected officials in Michigan and appoint a czar to mange it instead.

I sorta thought that when elected officials didn't do their jobs correctly, we held an election and got rid of them. Not really sure if Im comfortable with completely bypassing democracy and giving one man total control.
 
TexasWife25 said:
Get on with what?
Your right, the whole country is struggling...
so if someone came into your city and did this you would be ok with it?

They are basically taking over the entire state of Michigan one city at a time.
So I'm not really sure what the difference is, might as well just have the president step in, abolish all elected officials in Michigan and appoint a czar to mange it instead.

I sorta thought that when elected officials didn't do their jobs correctly, we held an election and got rid of them. Not really sure if Im comfortable with completely bypassing democracy and giving one man total control.
Click to expand...

Then you gotta start a revolution
 
TexasWife25 said:
So you would be ok if you voted for a representative and someone came in, threw out your vote, and basically dismantled your local government, for an indefinite period of time?
Click to expand...

That's the system we've had for years in voting for president. You haven't seemed to mind.
 
TexasWife25 said:
I fully agree, they are broke and struggling..
so... you agree, anytime there is an emergency you should be able to basically abolish democracy?
What about the state? Would it be ok for the federal government to come in and get rid of the governor because they felt the whole state was being mismanaged?
Click to expand...

Yes, it would be OK. If a state were mismanaged to the point the rights of citizens was infringed, it would be the Federal Government's responsibility to insure equal protection under the law.

I've seen it done.
 
bronzeage said:
Yes, it would be OK. If a state were mismanaged to the point the rights of citizens was infringed, it would be the Federal Government's responsibility to insure equal protection under the law.

I've seen it done.
Click to expand...

I admit, I'm young
Ive never heard of the federal government coming in and getting rid of the local government.
 
TexasWife25 said:
How is this similar to voting for president?

The word "voting" seems to say its not
Click to expand...

We live in a representative democracy. You don't directly vote for president. Your vote tells your congressperson who they should vote for. They theoretically could vote for someone who did not win the district. I doubt that would ever happen.
 
SgtSpiderMan said:
We live in a representative democracy. You don't directly vote for president. Your vote tells your congressperson who they should vote for. They theoretically could vote for someone who did not win the district. I doubt that would ever happen.
Click to expand...

stop saying wrong things.
 
SgtSpiderMan said:
We live in a representative democracy. You don't directly vote for president. Your vote tells your congressperson who they should vote for. They theoretically could vote for someone who did not win the district. I doubt that would ever happen.
Click to expand...

I do agree, the idea of the electoral vote is outdated and really needs to be reevaluated

however we DO vote, and no one would stand for their representative voting away from the popular vote.

In Michigan, their vote no longer counts.
 
dear god in heaven, that's not how it works!! stop repeating that nonsense!! congress only gets involved when the electoral college is deadlocked, you fucking morons.
 
TexasWife25 said:
I admit, I'm young
Ive never heard of the federal government coming in and getting rid of the local government.
Click to expand...

The Federal government has taken over management of many local school boards. There are still many local governments which are under Federal supervision because of violations of the 1965 Voting Rights Act.

It's easy to imagine what would happen if a local government ceased to function. If policemen and firemen cannot be paid, the basic protections we take for granted would not exist. If the local government cannot protect its citizens, it falls to the state. If the state cannot provide, the Federal government is on the hook.
 
TexasWife25 said:
So you would be ok if you voted for a representative and someone came in, threw out your vote, and basically dismantled your local government, for an indefinite period of time?
Click to expand...

If the alternative is a corrupt government sending the city into bankruptcy while they fill their own pockets, yes.



TexasWife25 said:
In Michigan, their vote no longer counts.
Click to expand...

That's not true and you need to stop saying it.
 
TexasWife25 said:
Get on with what?
Your right, the whole country is struggling...
so if someone came into your city and did this you would be ok with it?

They are basically taking over the entire state of Michigan one city at a time.
So I'm not really sure what the difference is, might as well just have the president step in, abolish all elected officials in Michigan and appoint a czar to mange it instead.

I sorta thought that when elected officials didn't do their jobs correctly, we held an election and got rid of them. Not really sure if Im comfortable with completely bypassing democracy and giving one man total control.
Click to expand...

They vote in what they want; Flint has not had a city Jail since 1989. Residents voted not to raise the millage in order to fund it.
Now the vote is to try and fund more police officers. But I don't think they can put
"pull out of ass" on a ballot

http://www.mlive.com/news/flint/index.ssf/2012/01/funding_more_police_officers_c.html
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

rae121452
today in lgbt+ history...
Replies
1
Views
364
rae121452
rae121452
D
Books Suppressed or Censored by Legal Authorities
Replies
3
Views
382
DevilishTexan
DevilishTexan
fgarvb1
City of New Orleans Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan
Replies
19
Views
806
landslider
L
Obama_Sucks
Your Assignment: Compile Obama’s Flip-Flops
2
Replies
33
Views
4K
Pad_Foot
Pad_Foot
crystalhunting
you know...there actually is some famous arab-americans,despite what the haters think
2
Replies
25
Views
717
Don K Dyck
Don K Dyck
Back
Top