Political News and Commentary with the Right Perspective. NAVIGATION
  • Front Page
  • News
  • Multimedia
  • Tags
  • RSS Feed


  • Advertise on RightMichigan.com


    NEWS TIPS!

    Get the RightMighigan.com toolbar!


    RightMichigan.com

    Buzz

    Who are the NERD fund donors Mr Snyder?

    Raise the curtain.

    Display: Sort:
    Should they though? (none / 0) (#5)
    by jgillmanjr on Sat Aug 06, 2011 at 05:55:33 PM EST
    If you have someone who runs saying one thing, and then completely going against that... probably doesn't hit the definition of misfeasance, malfeasance, or nonfeasance.

    Yet, it would be a reason that I find completely legitimate in regards to recall.

    It would be simple enough to prove misfeasance based on the definition provided - all that has to be done is show how a statute or regulation was violated in the execution of an activity.

    However, malfeasance or nonfeasance... other than codified statute or regulation, how do you prove that those requirements were met? Who should be the final arbiter of whether the target of the recall is a malfeasor or nonfeasor? The secretary of state? A "committee"?

    Surely that would allow for problems. What of the SoS doesn't like the target, and just lets anything qualify? What about the flip side, where that final arbiter(s) determines that the recall target didn't participate in malfeasance or nonfeasance, regardless of how damning the evidence?

    I think the issue is something that the voters are to decide - not a single, or even small group of arbiters.

    Parent

    Display: Sort:

    Login

    Make a new account

    Username:
    Password:
    Tweet along with RightMichigan by
    following us on Twitter HERE!
    create account | faq | search