“The chief executive officer of every city and the chief or
commissioner of police, commissioner or director of public safety or
other chief executive officer of the police force by whatever title he
may be designated, of every city may be removed by the governor after
giving to such officer a copy of the charges against him and an
opportunity to be heard in his defense. The power of removal provided
for in this subdivision shall be deemed to be in addition to the power
of removal provided for in any other law. The provisions of this
subdivision shall apply notwithstanding any inconsistent provisions of
any general, special or local law, ordinance or city charte”
I added emphasis to a critical bit you missed. He needs to be able to defend himself against the charges presented. Everyone here is pushing for her to remove him without this. It’s a bad precedent.
“to be heard in his defense” that’s from the actual law. Im using defense because that was the verb used, whereas you are using respond which means the same thing in this context.
I didn’t miss a damn thing. The governor has a process available to dismiss him. That /\ is the process. Therefore, removing the mayor would not be extra judicial.
No one has moved goal posts. Everyone else is saying he should be removed and I have said he should not be removed without a trial. Stop trying to misuse logical flaws as away of not addressing the actual argument.
Such a removal would not be extra judicial: https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/PBO/33
“The chief executive officer of every city and the chief or commissioner of police, commissioner or director of public safety or other chief executive officer of the police force by whatever title he may be designated, of every city may be removed by the governor after giving to such officer a copy of the charges against him and an opportunity to be heard in his defense. The power of removal provided for in this subdivision shall be deemed to be in addition to the power of removal provided for in any other law. The provisions of this subdivision shall apply notwithstanding any inconsistent provisions of any general, special or local law, ordinance or city charte”
I added emphasis to a critical bit you missed. He needs to be able to defend himself against the charges presented. Everyone here is pushing for her to remove him without this. It’s a bad precedent.
He gets to respond to the charges. But it’s not a trial or any kind of judicial proceedings. It is solely a political process, as is impeachment.
“to be heard in his defense” that’s from the actual law. Im using defense because that was the verb used, whereas you are using respond which means the same thing in this context.
I didn’t miss a damn thing. The governor has a process available to dismiss him. That /\ is the process. Therefore, removing the mayor would not be extra judicial.
Quit moving the goal posts.
edit: mistook you for a different poster
No one has moved goal posts. Everyone else is saying he should be removed and I have said he should not be removed without a trial. Stop trying to misuse logical flaws as away of not addressing the actual argument.
I’m sorry, I must be blind. Please point out the word “trial” in that section of the New York State Constitution.
All I see is “… after giving to such officer a copy of the charges against him and an opportunity to be heard in his defense.”
Do you need me to explain what a trial is?
Be my guest. I’d like to see how many of the words in your “explanation” fail to appear in the quoted section of the NYS Constitution.
Seems to me if the author meant a trial, they’d have used the word trial.