Rev. Ricky V. Burgess, apparently vying for the soon-to-be-vacated Jim Motznik Chair In Advanced Mayoral Fealty, has expressed his legal opinion regarding the approval-disapproval-amendment process associated with the Act 47 plan recently advanced by the Act 47 overseers and currently being fumbled by city officials.
My review of that letter indicates that, as a legal analyst and as a grammarian, Rev. Burgess is probably a fine man of the cloth.
Monday, June 15, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
LOL.
No seriously -- yes, I expressed some skepticism on my blog. But the legal argument he's making doesn't seem to crumble in a strong breeze either. Do you have any specific objections?
I'm a little more troubled by why the Council should be expected to surrender its privilege and perhaps it duty to intercede with the Coordinator and the Secretary, and with the Mayor as necessary.
I am disinclined to devote substantial energy or time to parsing a "legal opinion" that begins with a lecture on 'oath to the Constitutions" and proceeds quickly (and unimpressively) to a conclusion that is "beyond argument." This strikes me as a cherry-picked narrative fashioned at the law student level (second year), which is not surprising, unless city council members have recently and quietly engaged a reliable lawyer. The only thing missing was a reference to Marbury v. Madison. The argument isn't even persuasive enough to send me to the original authorities to check on its reasoning.
Post a Comment