The state of Michigan has decided to appeal the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals' ruling that the ban on affirmative action, adopted through a vote of the people, is a violation of the 14th Amendment.
Look deeper and you will see a classic example of a two-faced approach to public policy.
How can the state maintain that the voters have the last word on affirmative action and then turn around and negate the voters' decisions regarding who should represent them when Public Act 4, the emergency financial manager law, strips the voters of their right to elect local officials by giving the emergency financial manager the power to overrule and to effectively "fire" elected officials?
No matter where you stand on the principles of affirmative action, there is a constitutional question as to the state's right to nullify the outcome of the people's right to vote while at the same time saying that right to vote should be respected.
So, the questions remains...should Michigan argue that the vote of the people should be respected as it relates to affirmative action while at the same time, through Public Act 4. the state negates the vote of the people as to who the people vote to represent them in the municipalities where financial managers have been imposed on the people in those cities by the the state?
Can anyone make since of this schizophrenic public policy?
Look deeper and you will see a classic example of a two-faced approach to public policy.
How can the state maintain that the voters have the last word on affirmative action and then turn around and negate the voters' decisions regarding who should represent them when Public Act 4, the emergency financial manager law, strips the voters of their right to elect local officials by giving the emergency financial manager the power to overrule and to effectively "fire" elected officials?
No matter where you stand on the principles of affirmative action, there is a constitutional question as to the state's right to nullify the outcome of the people's right to vote while at the same time saying that right to vote should be respected.
So, the questions remains...should Michigan argue that the vote of the people should be respected as it relates to affirmative action while at the same time, through Public Act 4. the state negates the vote of the people as to who the people vote to represent them in the municipalities where financial managers have been imposed on the people in those cities by the the state?
Can anyone make since of this schizophrenic public policy?
No comments:
Post a Comment