Rebecca Helmes for the Palladium-Item writes an article entitledLocal legislators seek to revive bills. Sen. Allen Paul believes this might be the most intense session in the past 19 years. That is saying something, because that would include the days when the Boy Governor (Evan Bayh) faced off against Senator Garton and at least 2 sessions involving a 50-50 split in the House. This session you have one-party rule. Seems like the Republicans have enough resources to make the session go smoothly if they throw the Democrats a bone or two every once in awhile.
Statements like that of Rep. Pflum don’t really help though:
“We don’t have the numbers to stop the bills, but we do have the right to dissent,” Pflum said. He said House Democrats provided support for much of Gov. Mitch Daniels’ legislation, but are worried that a governor-appointed inspector general with prosecutorial powers eliminates necessary checks and balances in government.
I’m with him so far. Checks & balances were of vital importance to the Founding Fathers. I was reading the Federalist #48 where James Madison writes eloquently about the need for practical checks between the branches of government. (Yeah, I know how to live it up on a Saturday.)
But, then Pflum goes on to say:
This is like a Gestapo, folks.
No need to bring the Nazis into this. In online discussion, there is a principle known as Godwin’s Law. Basically, “as an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one.” Whoever mentions Nazis first, loses.
What I thought were relevant passages from the Federalist #48:
It is agreed on all sides, that the powers properly belonging to one of the departments ought not to be directly and completely administered by either of the other departments. It is equally evident, that none of them ought to possess, directly or indirectly, an overruling influence over the others, in the administration of their respective powers. It will not be denied, that power is of an encroaching nature, and that it ought to be effectually restrained from passing the limits assigned to it. After discriminating, therefore, in theory, the several classes of power, as they may in their nature be legislative, executive, or judiciary, the next and most difficult task is to provide some practical security for each, against the invasion of the others.
. . .
An elective despotism was not the government we fought for; but one which should not only be founded on free principles, but in which the powers of government should be so divided and balanced among several bodies of magistracy, as that no one could transcend their legal limits, without being effectually checked and restrained by the others. For this reason, that convention which passed the ordinance of government, laid its foundation on this basis, that the legislative, executive, and judiciary departments should be separate and distinct, so that no person should exercise the powers of more than one of them at the same time.
Having an independent inspector general insulated from the pressures of elections and local politics is not, in and of itself, objectionable. However, having that office tied to the will of the Governor is objectionable. The potential for the Governor to use his power against the legislative branch or local government is too great. I have not thought this through very much, but a less objectionable IG bill may have the Governor nominate a panel of, say, 3 to 5 candidates. The Supreme Court would select one of those candidates. And the IG would serve at the pleasure of the Supreme Court or the General Assembly, either of whom could cause the IG to be removed. (See my prior entry for an explanation of the Inspector General bill.)
Leave a Reply