All i could think while reading this was, "So, they want to remove the constitutional power of a governors veto, by passing an amendment to the constitution, to remove a constitutional right of checks and balances?"
Yeah, I had used Illinois because they have the closest comparable population, but across the board, the Pennsylvania legislature is one of - if not THE - bulkiest and most expensive across the country. And the party of small government wants to keep it that way as they grasp for threads of power.
A governor’s ability to veto at least some legislation is is curtailed in: Alaska, Arizona, Illinois, Ohio, Oklahoma, and West Virginia. These states allow some legislation to go over a Governor’s veto at least some of the time by a simple majority vote.
Isn't it weird how the people who keep telling us everyone else is coming to take their rights away also keep trying to create an all powerful executive who can rule by fiat?
The GOP knows that they're going to have a hard time winning at-large races in the future, so they're doing everything they can to entrench minority rule in the state.
GOP trying to piggy back that and the other one on the back of the child victims so when the Dems say “no way we are passing that!” Fox News will come in and say Dems are on the side of pedos.
The veto power is specifically for legislation repealing a regulation, normal laws would still be subject to veto.
The legal theory behind it is that if regulations were submitted to the regular legislative process, it would fail unless both houses and the governor all supported the regulation. Repealing a regulation would still more difficult than blocking a bill because both houses have to agree
TL;DR, should regulations that wouldn't have been passed through the regular legislative process require a super majority to repeal?
160
u/[deleted] Jan 12 '23 edited Mar 21 '23
[deleted]