Skip to main content

Rule Changes Proposed by Lepage Threaten Private Property Rights in Maine


Tweet This ! http://goo.gl/O3WkKI

An article in the Bangor Daily News discusses Governor Le Page's ambition to strip the Attorney General of authority over state agency rule making processes:

 LePage bill would void attorney general’s authority over new rules By Mario Moretto Bangor Daily News
AUGUSTA, Maine — Gov. Paul LePage has drafted a bill to strip the attorney general of authority over the rulemaking process used by state agencies to implement laws approved by the Legislature.
LePage has criticized judgments by Attorney General Janet Mills that some regulations he wanted were illegal. Rather than accept his lawyer’s legal advice, the governor would eliminate the requirement that she sign off on new state agency rules.
........The bill represents the latest salvo in a long battle between LePage, a Republican, and Mills, a Democrat. Currently, the AG must approve the “form and legality” of any state agency’s new rule or regulation, but the bill would limit Mills to an advisory role only.
........ It’s wrong, LePage says, for an attorney general chosen by the Legislature to have “veto power” over the policy goals of a governor, who is elected by voters.

This article presents points of view on why the Governor threatens the checks and balances of governmental power with his proposed changes to the rule making process.

The article does not mention one particual new rule that LePage is proposing in this act, which underscores why we need an Attorney General with an concern for our constitution to reign in a politician like LePage

An Act To Improve the Maine Administrative Procedure Act

2 Sec. 1. 5 MRSA §8052, sub-§7, as amended by PL 1995, c. 373, §3, is repealed and the following enacted in its place:
LePage's changes add the following:
9. Adoption of a rule expected to result in taking of private property. An agency  may not adopt a rule if it is reasonably expected to result in a taking of private property  under the Constitution of Maine unless such a result is directed by law or sufficient  procedures exist in law or in the proposed rule to allow for a variance designed to avoid  such a taking. (emphasis mine)
This begins by saying (under the Constitution of Maine) a rule cannot be adopted if expected to result in taking of private property - as if it is intended to protect private property and then it says "unless such a result is directed by law or......." 

 "Under the Constitution of Maine"  is placed at the end of the first sentence rather than at the beginning lessening its importance as if only an afterthought.

The Constitution of Maine already protects private property. This rule is not written in protection of private property but to extend the power of government to take private property merely by writing a law that directs private property to be taken.In other words it claims that stutory law can over ride constitutional law.

This rule literally says that stutory law can be used to overwrite the constitution's protection of private property mirroring the statutory overwrite of  constitutional requirements for the placement of fiscal information accompanying bond questions on the ballot also occuring during the Lepage administration and which LePage did not veto.
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

How The MPERS Contract Came To Be Embedded in the Maine Constitution

Is The Maine Public Retirement System Unconstitutional? According to the Maine Public Employees ComprehensiveFinancial Report of 2010 , the Maine Public Employees Retirement System was established in 1942 to provide services for retiring public employees. No information is given about how the Public Employees Retirement System was legally structured in 1942. In the report MPERS is described as “an independent public agency of the State of Maine that traces its history to 1942”. Wikipedia  uses the same term but when the link is clicked it reveals that Wikipedia has no idea what " independent public agency " means.  An online search for history of MPERS between 1942 and 1985 comes up empty.  In 1985 during the administration of Governor Joseph E Brennan, the Maine Legislature passed a statute announcing its intentions of using general taxpayer monies to provide for retirement funds and death benefits for public employees, a faction which, incidentally, includes th...
1 comment
Read more

High Brow Art VS the Marketplace and the Maine Juice Conference

TWEET THIS http://goo.gl/xdwZDk Continuing with my story from HERE ...(and incorporating a few paragraphs from this earlier but incomplete telling ) Finally, after a year of receiving stimulus fund notices for non-profits only, in the fall of 2009, I received an email from the Maine Arts Commission about a competition for small businesses for what I took to be, a modest grant for the sum of 30000.00 from an "anonymous source". In a moment of hopeful delusions, I imagined that the Maine Arts Commission had come to its senses and realized that they needed to support the private sector. The competition was called an "elevator pitch competition" which means a pitch delivered in five minutes. Even the written answers to questions on the application were required to be answered in a minimal number of words, brevity being stressed as being so important that if your couldn't explain a business idea in five minutes, then one's business idea is simply not ...
2 comments
Read more

Statutory Bond Question Requirements Amplify -NOT Negate Maine Constituion

TWEET THIS http://goo.gl/VcBj8O UPDATE NOV 11 2014:  Since I wrote This post- I cam across the statute governing Bond Ratification- as amended by the 2013 legislature It looks to be that the sentence "To meet the requirement that the signed statement of the Treasurer of State accompany any ballot question for ratification of a bond issue, the statement may be printed on the ballot" was amended by adding this "or it may be printed as a separate document that is made available to voters as provided in Title 21-A, sections 605-A and 651" Section 605-A no longer exists and I am tracking it down. Section 651 says it can be posted outside the guardrail which separates voters from the rest of the world. I am writing a new post to cover this new information Update Nov 12, 2014!   The link I originally referenced is here ,  THIS IS HOW THE LAW WAS WRITTEN IN  2011 - showing the process of incrementalism at play In this link  part of the sentence below is s...
1 comment
Read more