Should Governors be allowed to remove mayors from office?

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

There was a lot of debate about this in Michigan, where apparently it is possible, and Granholm seemed likely to boot Kilpatrick until he made it moot by resigning.

Seems like a strange law to me, even if it would have a good application in that scenario.

[perdedor]

I would be inclined to say no. I wouldn't want the power to remove democratically elected officials to be placed in the hands of one person.

[CPT MikeyMike]

No - it's a slippery slope. What would happen next? The president could remove a governor or senator?

If anything, any elected official should be recalled.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Not unless Mayors can remove Governers from office. That would be a "no" then.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

No, absolutely not.

[jokerman]

No - it's a slippery slope. What would happen next? The president could remove a governor or senator?

I don't think that's an apt comparison.  After all, municipalities are dependent upon the states, and have no independent sovereignty, wheras the federal union recognizes that state governments have a degree of sovereignty independent of federal creation or jurisdiction.

[DownWithTheLeft]

No, you'd see Cory Booker gone in a flash for a more machine-friendly candidate

[Associate Justice PiT]

     Not at all. It would make the governorship way too powerful. Imagine Arnold Schwarzenegger getting rid of Newsom & Villaraigosa for Republicans (I mean I would like it, but that doesn't make it okay).

[AkSaber]

No way!! That would open the door for so many abuses of power.

[Nym90]

Under the Michigan constitution, city and county governments only exist at the blessing of the state. The state could step in and abolish all of them if it wants to and erase all city and county boundaries.

That's why Granholm had this authority.

[Associate Justice PiT]

Under the Michigan constitution, city and county governments only exist at the blessing of the state. The state could step in and abolish all of them if it wants to and erase all city and county boundaries.

That's why Granholm had this authority.

     That's pretty frightening actually.

[Хahar 🤔]

Under the Michigan constitution, city and county governments only exist at the blessing of the state. The state could step in and abolish all of them if it wants to and erase all city and county boundaries.

That's why Granholm had this authority.

     That's pretty frightening actually.

So it is. Such things are one of the few good uses of referenda.

[Platypus]

With justification, yes. IE, if the mayor has broken the law, or the county bureaucracy has been completely ed, then something has tyo be done, and that';s the berst way. Followed within 30 days by an election and voila.

[Nym90]

Under the Michigan constitution, city and county governments only exist at the blessing of the state. The state could step in and abolish all of them if it wants to and erase all city and county boundaries.

That's why Granholm had this authority.

     That's pretty frightening actually.

So it is. Such things are one of the few good uses of referenda.

Indeed. It's not at all like the US constitution where states have rights independent of the federal government. Counties and cities only have rights if the state allows them to have such, basically.

[Associate Justice PiT]

Under the Michigan constitution, city and county governments only exist at the blessing of the state. The state could step in and abolish all of them if it wants to and erase all city and county boundaries.

That's why Granholm had this authority.

     That's pretty frightening actually.

So it is. Such things are one of the few good uses of referenda.

Indeed. It's not at all like the US constitution where states have rights independent of the federal government. Counties and cities only have rights if the state allows them to have such, basically.

     It's weird. The federal government is supposed to provide for republican forms of government for the states, yet Michigan has a decidedly unitary government.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

yet Michigan has a decidedly unitary government.

As a British citizen, please allow me to laugh bitterly.

[NDN]

No - it's a slippery slope. What would happen next? The president could remove a governor or senator?

If anything, any elected official should be recalled.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

There does need to be some means of removing mayors (and other officials) that have gone bad.  In this state, being indicted with a felony allows the governor to suspend an official, and a convictions causes a permanent boot.  Absent an indictment or conviction there is no power of removal.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

There does need to be some means of removing mayors (and other officials) that have gone bad.  In this state, being indicted with a felony allows the governor to suspend an official, and a convictions causes a permanent boot.  Absent an indictment or conviction there is no power of removal.

That might be fair if that was the case in Michigan.

[Associate Justice PiT]

There does need to be some means of removing mayors (and other officials) that have gone bad.  In this state, being indicted with a felony allows the governor to suspend an official, and a convictions causes a permanent boot.  Absent an indictment or conviction there is no power of removal.

That might be fair if that was the case in Michigan.

     Indeed. The potential for abuse in Michigan's case is startling though. It's rather fortunate that no one has abused this power in the past.