Constitution, what constitution?

New York state is now being governed by two unelected politicians.

We can thank a former governor”™s private peccadilloes and a revolting public display in the Senate for our current situation.

Last week”™s 4-3 vote by the Court of Appeals reinstates Richard Ravitch as lieutenant governor.
Let us rewind the tape to see how we arrived here.

Gov. David Paterson gained the top political post after Eliot Spitzer”™s personal transgressions spun him out of office.

Paterson installed Ravitch as his successor when the Senate staged its embarrassing faux coup earlier in the summer.

Ravitch is the architect of the $2.2 billion MTA bailout, which hit business owners in 12 counties, including Westchester, Putnam, Rockland, Dutchess and Orange, with a 34-cent tax on every $100 of payroll.

 

A lower court tossed the appointment saying it was unconstitutional.

 

Earlier in the year, Paterson chose Jonathan Lippman to be the state”™s chief judge after Judith Kaye stepped down.

Last week”™s 24-page majority opinion was authored by Lippman.

Lippman was joined by colleagues Carmen Beauchamp Ciparick, Susan P. Read and Theodore T. Jones in the majority.

“The issue on this appeal is whether the governor of the state of New York has the authority to fill a vacancy in the office of lieutenant governor by appointment. We now hold that he does.”
The immensity of the ruling is hidden in its simplicity.

The ruling makes Ravitch the first appointed lieutenant governor in state history.

But it goes beyond. It reinterprets the state constitution.

 

In his dissent, Judge Eugene F. Piggot Jr. ”“ joined by Judges Victoria A. Graffeo and Robert S. Smith ”“  also is concise, but scathing.

 

“Under the majority”™s rationale, the possibility exists that the citizens of this state will one day find themselves governed by a person who has never been subjected to scrutiny by the electorate, and who could in turn appoint his or her own unelected lieutenant governor. Because this is contrary to the text of the New York Constitution and affords governors unprecedented power to appoint a successor, we respectfully dissent.”

Sounds scary, maybe even Third World or banana republic ”“ people being ruled by people who were never elected to the post.

No governor in the history of the state has ever unilaterally chosen a lieutenant governor.

And in this case, it”™s no unelected governor in the history of the state has ever unilaterally chosen a lieutenant governor.

Dean Skelos, the Senate Republican leader who brought the lawsuit said: “The court”™s decision to allow the state”™s highest offices to be filled with no accountability whatsoever to the public or to their elected representatives in the Legislature, is dangerous to democracy.”

While it”™s easy to dismiss his statement as that of a sore loser, it bears some inspection. If such a move is indeed dangerous to democracy, perhaps legislation should be submitted to prevent this from happening in the future.

 

Perhaps with one eye on the governor”™s post, state Attorney General Andrew Cuomo said of the decision: “We respect the court”™s ruling and wish Mr. Ravitch success at his post.”

 

It”™s a far cry from what he said in July after Paterson appointed Ravitch to overcome the Senate”™s logjam.

“The state Constitution explicitly prescribes what occurs when there is a vacancy in the office of lieutenant governor. In such circumstance, article 4, § 6 states that ”˜the temporary president of the Senate shall perform all the duties of the lieutenant governor during such vacancy”¦”™

“Article 4, § 1 of the Constitution expressly provides that ”˜the lieutenant-governor shall be chosen at the same time, and for the same term”™ as the governor. The Legislature did not authorize a governor to bypass this provision of the Constitution and fill a vacancy in the office of lieutenant governor pursuant to Public Officers Law § 43”¦

“In sum, we understand the apparent political convenience of the proponents”™ theory due to the current Senate circumstances. In our view, however, it is not constitutional. In addition, contrary to the proponents”™ goal, we believe it would not provide long term political stability but rather the opposite, by involving the governor in a political ploy that would wind through the courts for many months.”
The ruling came much quicker ”“ less than two months.

Now should Ravitch change his mind and call it quits, who would be next in line?

According to the court, whomever Paterson so chooses.

The state”™s motto is Excelsior.

With actions such as these, perhaps Degravo is more apropos.