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2 Sec. 1. 5 MRSA §8052, sub-§7, as amended by PL 1995, c. 373, §3, is repealed and the following enacted in its place: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

Why are social impact investors trying so hard to defeat smaller shelters for the homeless?

  "Social Impact” developers in Portland, Maine seek to squelch a referendum for smaller shelters called for by qualified practitioners with concrete experience in the field. A large sign says Vote C to support the Homeless, small handmade sign next to it says Untrue! That sign is paid for by developers who want / Photo by Jess Falero In   the 1970s under Governor Longley , Maine became a centrally managed economy that expanded Maine’s wealth gap and merged, almost seamlessly, the public and private and the non-profit and for-profit economic sectors into one mutually beneficial wealth-concentration & distribution system. Currently, mutually benefitting factions are coming together once again in hopes of building a mega-shelter for the homeless in a Portland, Maine industrial development district. In addition to beds for the homeless, the project will include, dining, and locker facilities, as well as offices and an attached health clinic. The promotion  describes the ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Mayor LePage on Baldacci Reducing Funding To Municipalities

Tweet This  http://goo.gl/Et0wWS As Governor, LePage seems on track to implement the Steve Woods plan of nudging the inhabitants of rural towns to move into urban centers. Steve Woods was then the would be CEO of the corporate state. In the video Mr Woods explains that the inhabitants of 108 Maine Towns are not serving the corporation as they should be. Mr Woods says the 108 municipalities of Maine are costing the  corporation five times as much as the corporations recieves from these instrumentalities in sales tax revenue. Mr Woods speaks as a man managing a corporation not as a would be Governor of a state. He speaks in calm Obamaesque tones signaling that we can surely trust this erudite man so pro-active for the cause of state corporatism . The corporate state replaced Maine's constitution back in 1976 when Governor Longely called in the heads of Maine industry to restructure Maine as corporatio n, kicking the old fashioned Maine constitution out of ...
Post a Comment
Read more

FaceBook Blocking- in-Q-Tel and the Private Hegemony Of Power

TWEET THIS:  http://goo.gl/9y2MiH  Recently a message appeared  on my screen , being identified as from Facebook. It brought up the Facebook login screen and warned against sending friend requests to people that one does not know in one's circle of friends , family, work, and classmates I first received the message several months ago. The first message included a list of twenty names of people who did not respond to my friend request over all the years that I have been on Facebook. It asked that I delete all the requests and suggested that I stop sending friend requests for a week. The next was a list of 7 names - some of them very recent requests, which I did not think were given adequate response time. The third message to appear  told  that I am blocked for a week from adding friends and displayed a list of five names- all very recent requests- all in response to those with whom I interacted on Facebook- and one within the last hour of receiving t...
5 comments
Read more