3 users logged on

Tips: BlueJerseyDotCom (AIM) |

Star Ledger: Christie claims imperial powers

by: Jason Springer

Sun Feb 14, 2010 at 11:55:47 AM EST

Before Chris Christie gets used to walking his pugilistic swagger into the Governor's office every day, before he gets too comfortable resting that big thumb on the executive order button, and before newspapers run out of phrases like "martial law" and "we don't even know if it's legal," New Jersey's brand-new governor ought to think about something: 51% of the people in this state did not support him. But Instead of recognizing that and proceeding to work with the Legislature to make the changes he wants, Christie has charged head on in the opposite direction:

But Christie seems to think his blueprint is a sacred scroll. He claims imperial powers for himself and says he needs no consent from the Legislature.

The mandate he is claiming has a Bush like appearance that is eerily reminiscent of 2001 when Christie's mentor came into office. Governor Christie has signed 14 Executive Orders in his first 23 days in office. Let's look at how the new Governor's use of Executive Orders compares to his predecessors:

By comparison, former Gov. Jon Corzine issued three executive orders during the same time period, according to the website, and 167 total during his four-year term.
Former Gov. Jim McGreevey issued five executive orders in his first 30 days, while former Gov. Christie Todd Whitman issued eight in her first 30 days

On the question of whether it's legal, it appears we're headed for a showdown in the courts as Christie embarks on his strategy of governing by executive order and leaving the Legislative Branch to react once it's done. The Republicans in the Legislative branch are enjoying power they haven't had for years, but the Democrats as the majority party in the Legislature are pushing back trying to enforce the separation of powers. It reminds me of the arguments I heard made for the unitary executive when the Bush Administration was expanding their power. Both Thurman and Adam have written about this talking about ideology meeting reality:

But what Gov. Christie is doing is claiming that he can unilaterally change governmental policy simply by refusing to spend funds. It is based on the concept of the unitary executive. It means that the Executive has complete control of the bureaucracy, including the prerogative to simply not spend money deliberately set aside for a purpose with which the Governor disagrees.
In this, Adam might be closer to the truth than he thinks. Nixon didn't use the power of impoundment as described above. He used it to control budget expenditures and to control governmental policy (sound familiar?). Nixon tried to trim roughly 20 percent of controllable expenditures simply by refusing to spend the money. Then he began refusing to spend money on policies he didn't like.

It's all about power and Christie is trying to take as much of it as he can for his office. The Republicans in the Legislative branch are enjoying power they haven't had for years, but the Democrats as the majority party in the Legislature are pushing back trying to enforce the separation of powers. Right now we're on a collision course to the courts.

Jason Springer :: Star Ledger: Christie claims imperial powers

Tags: Chris Christie, imperial powers, Star Ledger, martial law, unitary, unitary executive, budget, fiscal state of emergency, fiscal emergency, (All Tags)

Print Friendly View

Send As Email

Star Ledger: Christie claims imperial powers | 8 comments

Kind of makes me wonder (2.00 / 1)

All of these separation of powers arguments by the Legislature -- where were they when the court decided to Legislate school funding and other areas where they stepped on the toes of the Executive and Legislative branches? Just sayin.

by: AreYouWithMe? @ Sun Feb 14, 2010 at 17:44:32 PM UTC

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

that's a fair comparison... (0.00 / 0)

But I (and you) know there was and has been plenty of grumbling from the legislature on those occasions (to this day) so I'm not sure why you "wonder" or imply hypocrisy.

Frank LoBiondo Record and Jon Runyan Watch

by: Hopeful @ Sun Feb 14, 2010 at 18:04:26 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

Imperial Powers (0.00 / 0)

If Christie's tactics work and they don't destroy the economy or too many lives, he'll become a multi-term governor in a fairly pragmatic state. If his strategy doesn't work and a lot of middle class people are hurt by them (higher property taxes, fewer jobs and the destruction of the healthcare system for the poor and middle class), then he'll be a one term governor. The problem from my pov, is that 7 years is more than enough to destroy the state for good and myself in particular. Sadly, I just can't trust a Bush Republican any more than I can an Obama Democrat. It seems that the Republicans just throw money at different corporations (companies that cater to the rich) than the Democrats (companies that make money off the poor) while the middle class and poor either get no services from the Republicans or shoddy and ineffective services from the Democrats.

by: ryunkin @ Sun Feb 14, 2010 at 18:37:23 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

"...an Obama Democrat." (4.00 / 3)

And who would that be, exactly?

Bushies are easy to spot: it's the ermine trimmed robes.

Fake concern trolls reveal themselves when they imply Obama has impacted the country to the degree Bush did. It's absurd and, more importantly, telling.

I doubt anyone will ever do the damage Bush did... except of course another Bushie.

Which is what we're dealing with.

As scarce as truth is, the supply has always been in excess of the demand.

by: Jersey Shore John @ Sun Feb 14, 2010 at 18:42:53 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I know (4.00 / 1)

that's the ideologically conservative line, but it isn't reality. With both the Abbott and Mt. Laurel decisions, the state Supreme Court found that guaranteed rights were being violated and instructed the other two branches to fix it. The fact is that the other two branches have botched it, about as badly as is possible.

They are both remarkably similar to the actions of the Lewis v. Harris decision. The court acted as an arbiter of rights and said further legislative actions were necessary. That the resulting actions were less than optimal (to understate the case) is not the fault of the Court.

by: Thurman Hart @ Sun Feb 14, 2010 at 19:01:16 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

Perhaps Governor Christie will be able to (0.00 / 0)

make NJ Transit trains run on time.

by: FormerBureaucrat @ Mon Feb 15, 2010 at 04:45:16 AM UTC

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

Comment of the Day (0.00 / 0)