Talk:2009 New York State Senate leadership crisis

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Terminology[edit]

The New York State Constitution uses the term Temporary President of the Senate, and the term "pro tempore" hasn't been used since 1938 (see Majority Leader of the New York State Senate). So while president pro tempore is right as far as terminology goes, the official position is Temporary President of the Senate. I tried to fit it in the article so readers don't get confused. -- Austin512 (talk • contribs 21:51, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Events after initial change[edit]

I'm not sure how to structure that section. I tried to separate the legal actions out, but now the section isn't linear. I'm going to leave it the way it is, but I think somebody should try to improve it. -- Austin512 (talk • contribs) 05:03, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Appointment of a Lt. Gov.[edit]

Austin, the AG does not state beliefs, it's his job to make decisions. That is called a "ruling." This ruling can be questioned in court, of course, but you see what happened in this case. The restraining order was issued right away. The appointment of a lieutenant governor is a legal and historical monstrosity. The State Constitution is very clear on that issue, to construe a different "interpretation" is pure partisan politics. (I'm not a Republican, and I do not live in the U.S., I'm a historian, and a try to provide a little of the historical context in which the present happens.) However, I appreciate the good job you did with this article. Kraxler (talk) 18:29, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]


About the AG, he doesn't rule, the courts rule. He defends the state. As far as I can tell, no AG in the US rules anymore than a district attorney rules when bringing a case to court. I'm open to argument, maybe we're don't think "rule" means the same thing here.

About the Constitution, what you wrote makes it seem like the Constitution explicitly prohibits the appointment, which it doesn't. It says there can't be a special election, and says that if there is a vacancy, the temp pres of senate performs all duties of lt governor. It doesn't say all of the duties "until the end of the term", or similar.

The way you are using the word "inferior" is what I referenced as POV. First, I don't believe it has to be mentioned at all, as it is common knowledge that the Constitution is the Supreme Law. Second, when you say that the Public Officers law is inferior, it implies that the they laws contradict, and that therefore the Constitution "wins out". Now without a source saying that they contradict, I don't want to imply that they due.

Now, I've only skimmed the relevant part of the public officers law found here (I think section 7 is the relevant part), but I'm confused because I can't find things you mention. You say the legislature, but it only talks about the senate (could be that's what you meant). You also say that the appointments are only possible during recces. I find nothing about it. Of course I might be in the wrong section. You seem to be much better versed in it, so if you can point out the relevant part, that would be great.

I'll leave your revisions until we resolve this. -- Austin512 (talk • contribs) 23:40, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is quite a confusing situation, historically, legally and politically. But just a few preliminary words:
  • The AG is elected to care for any legal business that arises concerning the State, among it to defend the State in lawsuits, yes. But, he does not state his beliefs, he makes a decision. This is a ruling as much as a court's, you see, the AG's decision is the first of a possible sequence. If any controversy arises, the AG decides, and if not questioned in court, this ruling stands. If questioned in court, the court might uphold or reverse the AG's ruling, that's another ruling, going the the appellate court.... A D.A. has a similar power, deciding to go to court, or not to go to court. In the latter case, he decides in stead of the judge, doesn't he?
  • "Inferior" means that the law should be in accordance with the Constitution, if any part of an "inferior" law contradicts the Constitution it is "unconstitutional," as AG Cuomo correctly stated. To write the word in the article reforces somewhat the point, and might well be considered POV. If you think that it is common knowledge, that the public knows that you can not "interpret" something from any law to supersede the Constitution, then delete it.
  • The provisions of the Constitution which prohibit special elections (both popular or legislative), and provide a positive way to fill the vacancy leave absolutely no room for this type of legal hair-splitting (no offense, please). The phrase "If a vacancy, then this officer acts as..." is 100% positive about what to do, and has been respected for almost 240 years during which numerous vacancies have ocurred. This To come up with a new "interpretation" saying that "since it is not experessly forbidden, I could...." would give you the right to kill your nagging mother-in-law, since the law prohibts murder but not expressly the murder of mothers-in-law; which would be absurd, don't you think? Besides, the Constitution of 1938 added another contingency measure, it also provided that "in case of vacancy of Temp. Pres., the SPEAKER is next-in-line" to the Governor's chair. This clinches it, it effectively PROHIBITS any attempt to fill the vacant Lt. Gov. office in any way.
  • I did not read the Public Officers Law, sorry, no time, but first: The Governor, Lt. Gov., Comptroller and AG stand in a class of their own, they are elected statewide by popular ballot. They are in a certain way equals, the Gov. being "primus inter pares." Read carefully the article: "The Gov. "ENCOURAGED" the Comptroller to withhold pay..." The Gov. can NOT ORDER the Comp. to do anything, since their power derives from the same source. If a vacancy in the Comp. or AG's office occurs, the State Legislature elects somebody on joint ballot (Senate and Assembly), permitting recess appointments by the Governor which stand without later approval by the State Legislature. Most other state officers in New York are appointed by the Governor with or without confirmation by the State Senate, and many are thus inferior to the Governor, take his orders, and can be removed, but none of this is applicable to the Lt. Gov. The appointive offices should be stated by name or by position in the Public Officers Law.

I hope this clarifies the issues somewhat, but feel free to continue the debate if there is any doubt.Kraxler (talk) 15:30, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kraxler, the state constitution specifically bars a special election to fill the Lt. Gov. position, but it allows the Governor to make appointments to vacant offices. Therefore, this move could withstand the court challenge. You agree with Cuomo's interpretation, clearly. We'll see what the courts determine, but for now, you shouldn't be so certain this is unconstitutional. --Muboshgu (talk) 16:23, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Muboshgu, you are quite right: I am quite certain that the appointment is unconstitutional, I am with Cuomo on this point, and we will have to see what the courts say.Kraxler (talk) 18:46, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's tough to say. I think I lean towards saying it is constitutional, but as I'm no constitutional law expert, I can't be sure. I will say that when I first heard Cuomo come out against it, my first thought was that it was a political move, trying to keep Paterson as weak as possible for a potential primary challenge. Who knows, we shall see...--Muboshgu (talk) 20:17, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok, I don't believe that anywhere in Section VI actively prohibits the appointment. I've read ¶4 a dozen times and still don't see it prohibiting an appointment. If you can find a source which says it does, then add it back, but in the mean time I'm removing it (read the rest of my comment first, as it further explains).
  • Also, ¶6 says "the legislature may provide for the devolution of the duty of acting as governor in any case not provided for in this article" (emphasis mine). It does not prohibit other ways. So I don't see a conflict here either.
  • Here they talk about the section of the public officers law that they used. At first I thought it conflicted with Article VI Section 6 ¶6, but it doesn't.
  • Now I found this which quotes Cuomo saying it violates Article VI Section 1, because that says that the lieutenant governor shall be elected in a general election alongside the governor. This is the only definitive place I've found saying that the move violates a particular section of the Constitution.
About the wording, I'm ok with something along the lines of "AG Cuomo has ruled that the move is unconstitutional as it violates Article VI Section 1 [footnote], and has filed motions with _____ court to prevent the appointment." assuming I find somewhere that actually says he will take it to court. This takes care of the inferior part, the ruled/believes POV part, and takes care of the no original research (assuming the second clause is actually true). Now unless you find a source which states that Article 4 Section 6 is violated, I don't think we can include it because it would be OR, since it clearly not the only interpretation. We should just include that it doesn't say the gov can appoint someone, and that special elections are prohibited. -- Austin512 (talk • contribs) 17:39, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Austin, AG Cuomo has ruled it unconstitutional and invalid, period. Then the case went to court, where it is still pending. That was published in the press, the grounds are not in the article. I edited the article earlier, and it is now restricted to bare statements of fact and quotable utterances of the participants in the imbroglio. Just read it, it does not say that appointments are prohibited, it says special elections are forbidden, which is expressly stated in the Constitution, etc. The further interpretation of the Constitution should be added to the article after the ruling of the State Supreme Court.
  • I checked now again, and saw that even recess appointments for AG and Comp are now EXPRESSLY FORBIDDEN by the state constitution in Section V: "The legislature shall provide for filling vacancies in the office of comptroller and of attorney-general." You see, for the filling of these offices (the popularly statewide elected officers) it is now necessary to call a special session of the state legislature during recess.... I'm every hour more certain, that there is not one iota of argument for the appointment of a lieutenant governor.
  • The last phrase of §6 "The legislature may provide for the devolution of the duty of acting as governor in any case not provided for in this article." means that if there is, at the same time, no Gov, no Lt. Gov, no Temp Pres and no Speaker; or any situation has arisen in which it is unclear who is or would be the rightful office-holder as Acting Governor, THEN the STATE LEGISLATURE (not the Governor!!!!!) shall provide for a solution.
  • As I said before: The phrase "If a vacancy, then this officer acts as..." is 100% positive about what to do. It is an instruction without room for argument. Such a positive instruction implies that appointments are forbidden, they are totally out of the question. The judge knows that, the AG knows that. In 240 years of state history, it was always respected, nobody ever thought about appointing a lieutenant governor and then Paterson lost his head under pressure. History shows that there have been quite a few legislative crises in New York, and sooner or later they are solved and the political life goes on, it is necessary to be patient during these times. (Check at the links I provided in the article) Anyway, we will have to wait and see, the case continues on Wednesday. Kraxler (talk) 18:46, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Sorry about saying that I'll remove the stuff you added, I got mixed up when reviewing the diffs, and thought you readded stuff you didn't. Right now I thinks it's good, neutral, and well referenced.

I just want to point out the difference between the AG Comp stuff and the stuff from Article IV §6. For the AG and comp it says "The legislature shall provide for filling vacancies", which is a 100% positive statement about the only way to fill the vacancies. On the other hand, Article IV §6 says "The legislature may provide for the devolution of the duty of acting as governor". Note it says "may", leaving the door open about other ways to deal the with situation, and it doesn't mention filling vacancies.

I still think don't like the connotations that "rule" has in "Attorney General Andrew Cuomo ruled that ...". Maybe you don't see the connotation (since English isn't your native language according to you infoboxes), but in English, in legal contexts, I've only ever read or heard the word "rule" used exclusively with decisions by judges/courts/juries. I think most other editors would agree with me here. I've changed it to "decided". It still carries some of the same connotations, but much less so, and is less wishy-washy than "believes". -- Austin512 (talk • contribs) 19:51, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Article IV, §6 says "...in any case not provided for in this article." which makes it a last-resort-contingency-clause (or some such thing, you understand what I mean?). We are a long way from any such necessity. "May" has the connotation of the remotest possibility of ever arising such a case (a contingency measure), whereas "shall" has the connotation of an ordinarily recurring event (an instruction). Anyway, The LEGISLATURE may, the Governor mayn't!!!!
  • Imagine you drive a car, a blue car let's say, and you come to a red light. The traffic code may say: "If there is a red light, then stop." (a positive instruction), but it is not expressly forbidden in the traffic code to pass in a blue car. (I'm quite certain that there is nowhere in the United States in a traffic code written verbatim: "No driver in a blue car shall pass a red light.") Now answer the question: Does the above red light instruction prohibit passing in a blue car? Does the positive instruction to Stop imply a prohibition to pass, under all circumstances? Or can you construct a different interpretation?
  • Ok, if you think "ruling" is too strong a word for an AG's decision, how about The AG "held" that..., or The AG "opined" that... In fact, the statement of the AG may have more the connotation of a legal opinion, or an expertise, than a decision.
  • That makes me think about the prospects in court of this appointment, it being contested by the Republicans, the AG who represents the State and the State Legislature whose Temp Pres is really Acting Lt. Gov... The judge adjourned the hearing to give Paterson time to back up, and annul the appointment, saying that this was just a little nudge to the state senators, that might still save him. Otherwise, he is politically dead. He overstepped the line, doing something openly and unmistakably unconstitutional, breaking his oath of office. A pity, you see. he was doing well, calling special sessions, encouraging the Comptroller to withhold pay, asking the leaders to a round table every once in a while, berating them in the press, a perfect campaign to be re-elected in 2010. But then he gave in to busybodies who constructed an interpretation that would not stand up in any court for a minute. A cool head under pressure makes a successful politician. Really a pity.Kraxler (talk) 20:43, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Held is the perfect word, I'll add it.

Your analogies (mother-in-law, blue car) are a bit off. They say all say that A is illegal, but B isn't. But in both cases B is a subset of A. I'm saying that just because the Constitution doesn't provide for the gov. to appoint a lt. gov, doesn't mean that the appointment is unconstitutional. If the Constitution said "You may right in black ink", it doesn't make writing in blue ink automatically unconstitutional.

Anyway, let's leave it here until Wednesday. (For the record, I don't actually think the appointment is legal, per Cuomo's reason.) -- Austin512 (talk • contribs) 21:12, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Austin: Wednesday came and went. We will have to be more patient, the case will go probably to the Court of Appeals too...
Eric: In the meanwhile I would like that no POV content is added. If facts are stated, give WP:Reliable sources, not blogs (which are unaccessable by many servers for safety reasons). The question is, what really happened to the restraining order which barred Ravitch from exercising the duties of the office. Kraxler (talk) 17:31, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say that the blog is reliable. It's part of Newsday (the domain name was misleading), and from WP:Reliable sources, (at the end of it), "Note that otherwise reliable news sources--for example, the website of a major news organization--that happens to publish in a "blog" style format for some or all of its content may be considered to be equally reliable as if it were published in a more "traditional" 20th-century format of a classic news story." A whole bunch of the references here are from "blogs", like NY Times City Room, and Daily News The Daily Politics (there's some opinion thrown in that one, but the facts are still reliable).
But it appears that the restraining order was vacated an that he's lt. gov right now [1]. I'll update the article. -- Austin512 (talk • contribs) 04:22, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the new link, Austin. The restraining order seems to have been vacated, yes. The appointment is still in dispute. The current status on the appointment is, that the AG holds it as unconstitutional and invalid. This opinion can be upheld or reversed by Justice LaMarca. At least one half of the state senate (Rep. + Espada) does not recognize him either (the now already infamous tie would persist here if the Democrats backed Paterson...). Did Ravitch actually venture into the Senate chamber yet? In the meanwhile Ravitch is a "voluntary private secretary" to Gov. Paterson, since the Lt. Gov.'s duties nowadays are not so many. The Temporary President presides usually over the State Senate even if a Lt. Gov. is in office, and there is no tie in the State Senate (until the next coup, at least). As to the succession, the State Senate has the power to remove appointed officers if it came to that. And, please do not add blog addresses as sources if you can find something else. Many servers do not permit blogs to be accessed at workplaces (I'm in this situation too...) and many people consult Wikipedia especially while working or for their work. Kraxler (talk) 13:39, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Timing language[edit]

It looks like no one came back to edit this after the crisis resolved completely; some of the language continued to be written as a current event. I edited it into past tense.

For some reason, I am powerfully reminded of the scene from 1776, when John Hancock asked Lewis Morris why the New York delegation continually abstained in Congress. Morris explained that the delegation had never been given explicit instructions by the state legislature because "they speak very fast and very loud, and nobody listens to anybody else, with the result that nothing ever gets done." Clearly, not much changed in 233 years. -DrGaellon (talk | contribs) 20:11, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dead link[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 18:24, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dead link 2[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 18:24, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on 2009 New York State Senate leadership crisis. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:51, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 22 external links on 2009 New York State Senate leadership crisis. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:10, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2009_New_York_State_Senate_leadership_crisis&oldid=1196548020"