Mayor Versus Governor.

[mawnansmiff]

Just so I understand news items properly, who has precedence, the New York Governor or the New York Mayor?

I'm guessing the Governor has precedence over the Mayor, but I could well be wrong.

And to any snowflakes reading this, this is no political post, I'm simply trying to educate myself regards ongoing world news which I'm watching every day along with home news.

Regards,

Jay ?

 

[olkofri]

I'd say the governor overrules the mayor.

That's how it's here. The city hall passed highly draconian measures, exceeding the provincial measures, and they were rescinded by the premier. Provincial government trumps local gov't.

 

[Bowie]

Jay - The Governor is technically more powerful, as he can make orders that affect everyone in the state, but in many cases a local city mayor can make more stringent provisions. It's not an either-or relationship. For example, the governor can issue a "shelter in place" order and limit non-essential travel. A city mayor could not overrule the governor's order and say it does not apply in his or her city, but could in some cases make more stringent orders, like a curfew.

 

[ssjones]

Here's an pretty interesting and seemingly accurate summation of the powers of the President vs those of a Governor. I'm not a study of politics, there may be hidden agenda here:

Trump or governors: Who’s the boss? | Brookings

William Galston writes that the president does not have the power to force governors to cease their lockdowns in response to COVID-19. The role the federal government can most effectively play, he writes, is in steering industry toward producing more protective equipment and ventilators.

www.brookings.edu

 

[mikestanley]

Home Rule is something that "can" give Mayors more power over their City in many cases. What I am astonished by here in Ohio is how much power the Dept. of Health has. Earlier, Gov. DeWine issued an Order postponing the Ohio Primary. A group filed a lawsuit and a Judge issued a stay. The Director of Health issued an Order. Primary moved.

Mike S.

 

[Bengel]

how much power the Dept. of Health has.

This for me too, but I think from the feds on down to local politicians are worried if they don’t listen to them and project worse case scenario.

 

[warren]

Generally the Gov is the power but, political parties and the machine determine power. In Illinois the mayor of Chicago is the power and is usually the de facto head of the Democrat party. If the Governnor is a Dem he/she is usually under the thumb of the party machine, ergo the mayor of Chicago. The relationship between New York City and the State of New York is similar. The power is where the moneys are. New York City is nearly a state in and of itself and would rarely "bow" to a republican governor. The present situation is a "thorny" one, two huge egos from the same party. For the purposes of this discussion, the constitutions of the various states determines, in theory, where the 'power" rests. State without large, distinct population/tax centers have less conflict in this area. If a "pissing contest" develops, it is anyone's guess who would turn out to would be the winner.

The Governor has a certain control of the money (read: power) but, New York City has enough people in the legislature that the governor's "power" can be merely titular.

 

[Richmond B. Funkenhouser]

The majority party has the power. So it depends on the state and city in question.

 

[warren]

I should have written that the governor has some control over the moneys provided by the legislature. These moneys are usually accompanied with stipulations as to use. But the gov is the CEO as it were. The voters are the shareholders. How much power a governor actually wields is totally dependent on the meekness of his party members in the legislature and how much abuse the electorate will tolerate before opting for a change.

 

[alaskanpiper]

Depends on the state. In Alaska the governor has FAR more power than any mayor. But our pathetic excuse for a state legislature dominates them all.

 

[Ronv69]

In Texas the Lt. Governor is the top power. Nobody crosses him. He controls the legislative agenda. Therfore, he controls the money.

 

[dmcmtk]

Living in NY, I can't even comment on the Governor or the Mayor. My post would be reported!

 

[mawnansmiff]

Some excellent answers so thanks so much chaps.

Going by what Al, Warren and others posted, it would seem your system is way more complicated than ours which in no way could be described as being 'simple' but then I suppose government, even on a local level is never simple.

Most surprising of all was that the (any State) Governor can't easily be overruled by the President, but thinking about it from a historical perspective, the US is of course a federation of States, each with their own autonomy so I suppose that makes sense.

What prompted this query was the stories I was seeing on Sky News regards in particular New York and how so very different were the views held. I just needed to know who had power over who for it to make more sense to me.....if that makes sense!

Thanks again chaps.

Regards,

Jay.

 

[Old School 3319]

Generally the Gov is the power but, political parties and the machine determine power. In Illinois the mayor of Chicago is the power and is usually the de facto head of the Democrat party. If the Governnor is a Dem he/she is usually under the thumb of the party machine, ergo the mayor of Chicago. The relationship between New York City and the State of New York is similar. The power is where the moneys are. New York City is nearly a state in and of itself and would rarely "bow" to a republican governor. The present situation is a "thorny" one, two huge egos from the same party. For the purposes of this discussion, the constitutions of the various states determines, in theory, where the 'power" rests. State without large, distinct population/tax centers have less conflict in this area. If a "pissing contest" develops, it is anyone's guess who would turn out to would be the winner.

The Governor has a certain control of the money (read: power) but, New York City has enough people in the legislature that the governor's "power" can be merely titular.

The governor in Illinois is a job usually bought not elected

 

[ssjones]

The governor in Illinois is a job usually bought not elected

Theoretically (and actually) that is true in every state - most politicians fund raise, some at the state level might not (my wife's boss, a MD Senator, does zero fund raising) At the Federal level, they all fund raise. So in that sense, those elected positions are bought.

This weekend, our local county Health Department official shut down our one campground (at the intersection of I-81 and I-70. No other campgrounds were shuttered in Maryland (qualify as "Lodging"). She had to get the State Health Department official (and Secretary of Commerce) to over-rule the local decision. It was an interesting power struggle to watch.

 

[Kozeman]

Home Rule is something that "can" give Mayors more power over their City in many cases. What I am astonished by here in Ohio is how much power the Dept. of Health has. Earlier, Gov. DeWine issued an Order postponing the Ohio Primary. A group filed a lawsuit and a Judge issued a stay. The Director of Health issued an Order. Primary moved.

Mike S.

I wonder if Gov De Wine is descended from Count De Money...

 

[Kozeman]

Generally the Gov is the power but, political parties and the machine determine power. In Illinois the mayor of Chicago is the power and is usually the de facto head of the Democrat party. If the Governnor is a Dem he/she is usually under the thumb of the party machine, ergo the mayor of Chicago. The relationship between New York City and the State of New York is similar. The power is where the moneys are. New York City is nearly a state in and of itself and would rarely "bow" to a republican governor. The present situation is a "thorny" one, two huge egos from the same party. For the purposes of this discussion, the constitutions of the various states determines, in theory, where the 'power" rests. State without large, distinct population/tax centers have less conflict in this area. If a "pissing contest" develops, it is anyone's guess who would turn out to would be the winner.

The Governor has a certain control of the money (read: power) but, New York City has enough people in the legislature that the governor's "power" can be merely titular.

While I agree that the party rules in Illinois.... The power resides with Speaker Mike Madigan and not in whomever is Mayor of Chicago. Mayors of Chicago can come and go,,, but Madigans are forever

 

[perdurabo]

Some excellent answers so thanks so much chaps.

Going by what Al, Warren and others posted, it would seem your system is way more complicated than ours which in no way could be described as being 'simple' but then I suppose government, even on a local level is never simple.

Most surprising of all was that the (any State) Governor can't easily be overruled by the President, but thinking about it from a historical perspective, the US is of course a federation of States, each with their own autonomy so I suppose that makes sense.

What prompted this query was the stories I was seeing on Sky News regards in particular New York and how so very different were the views held. I just needed to know who had power over who for it to make more sense to me.....if that makes sense!

Thanks again chaps.

Regards,

Jay.

We have Federalism in the United States. It’s separation of powers all the way down to the localities. The Local government has the most power. (At least that’s how it was set up, political diatribes would be needed to describe why it isn’t, now) We are watching Federalism play out now. The Governor of New York is complaining about beds and face mask, and trying to blame the Federal government for his state’s deficiency. It isn’t going to work. It’s his job as well as the mayors of each city to make sure they have enough emergency supplies. Gov. Cuomo didn’t think beds and mask were important 6 months ago. Now his state will suffer.

Warren is probably Correct about the metropolis’ in the north. Those big city Mayors are powerful and pull the strings. But in Georgia, that is not the case. The Sheriffs were the strongest power, until consolidations of city and county became the fad. Now the Mayors have the strongest seat of power. Years ago in Georgia, it May still be the case, the State government only recognized the counties in which the city resides. The Sheriff is elected. He is a partner with the city’s Mayor. He is the Top Law enforcement. The Mayor is not of course a law enforcement officer. He’s the seat of civilian power.

I’m sorry for the novel. Yes the US system is complicated, it’s designed to keep the individual protected. How this happens? Government can’t take a crap without asking for permission 300 times and without conducting a balancing act (separation of powers) on the toilet. Hence folks like Rep. Massie. Toilet paper controller.

 

[mawnansmiff]

Very interesting Perdurabo. If I might ask another question, from what I understand, your system is a two party system so does this mean that if say the Governor of X state is a democrat would the Mayor also have to be a democrat?

I'm guessing not bit I can't be sure.

Regards,

Jay.

 

[Richmond B. Funkenhouser]

Very interesting Perdurabo. If I might ask another question, from what I understand, your system is a two party system so does this mean that if say the Governor of X state is a democrat would the Mayor also have to be a democrat?

I'm guessing not bit I can't be sure.

Regards,

Jay.

No. Some states are mostly one or the other, it's usually a rural (republicans) vs urban (democrats).