Hacker News Reader

Comment by hoorayimhelping | Hacker News Reader

>why has the state legislature not immediately begun impeachment?

I was under the impression that impeachment is not a "I didn't get my way, I'm going to remove you from office" card. It's not for validating the whims of the electorate because some of them think they're not being served. It's for bringing official charges to an elected official and putting them on trial. What charges can you file against the governor based on this short article and actually bring to trial?

View on HN

I know it isn't but technically it really should be. What use is it to have someone represent you that no longer serves your interests.

I think the "we don't like what you've done" mechanism is a recall election rather than an impeachment. Of course, lots of places don't even have those.

Under this same logic the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (aka Obamacare) would have lead to the impeachment of the President and most of the Democrats in Congress. It was HUGELY unpopular and has only recently become so-so... 5 YEARS after it was passed.

I think the best legal action is SolarCity (and others) to sue the State of Nevada over loss of business. Is that possible?

You want to create a right to not lose business because of government action? Are you sure about that?

You just entirely destroyed the EPA.

It already exists: investor state dispute settlement.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Investor-state_dispute_settlem...

While in some sense that corresponds to the words I used (by which I mean, I see why you mention it as relevant), it definitely doesn't come close to applying here, as that is international law.

You just need to find the right angle to sue someone. That's probably hard for a company without a billion dollars to spend on lawyers.

A better argument would be, as the NV consumer advocate asserted, that the way they reduced a previously agreed-upon rate is illegal: http://www.utilitydive.com/news/nevada-regulators-will-consi...

To be clear, my point is and was that that is a terrible line of argumentation, not that there are no possible good ones.

Isn't this what the TPP does?

> would allow foreign corporations to sue the United States government for actions that undermine their investment “expectations” and hurt their business

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/26/business/trans-pacific-par...

You just entirely destroyed the EPA.

Yeah, but there's probably bad consequences to it also.

Actually, such a right exists in some cases, in particular, if it's found to be a taking.

https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42635.pdf

Additionally, states generally can't impair existing contracts through legislation due to the contracts clause.

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contract_Clause (mainly because i'm too lazy to write it all up here).

Reply on news.ycombinator.com