Stimulus Bill Has Provision To Bypass Any Governor Declining The Funds

• February 14, 2009

The oh-so-wise Democrats in Washington DC have decided that your state will the stimulus, whether the Governor you voted for wants it or not.
Found buried in the “stimulus” spending spree:
SEC. 1607. (a) CERTIFICATION BY GOVERNOR — Not later than 45 days after the date of enactment of this Act, for funds provided to any State or agency thereof, the Governor of the State shall certify that: 1) the State request and use funds provided by this Act , and; 2) funds be used to create jobs and promote economic growth.
(b) ACCEPTANCE BY STATE LEGISLATURE — If funds provided to any State in any division of this Act are not accepted for use by the Governor, then acceptance by the State legislature, by means of the adoption of a concurrent resolution, shall be sufficient to provide funding to such State.

Clearly this is aimed at South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford, probably the only governor in the country who understands that more federal spending at the state level isn’t going to fix anything.
But what I’m wondering is…is this even constitutional? Can the federal government just arbitrarily decide to freeze a Governor out of the budgeting process? What basis does the federal government have to do such a thing? Certainly nothing in the constitution.

Tags: Asshats, Domestic Issues, Politics

http://Array Hawk

But if we use your interpretation of that clause, we’d be assuming that the founding fathers intended the various state governments to be little more than extensions of the federal government.

And if we use your interpretation no state could receive federal funding ever, but clearly they do. Congress has the power to spend on anything for the general welfare. If it is not clearly prohibited it is allowed. My grasp of the law is far better than yours. For one thing, the federalist papers aren’t law.
Brent

But what I’m wondering is…is this even constitutional? Can the federal government just arbitrarily decide to freeze a Governor out of the budgeting process? What basis does the federal government have to do such a thing? Certainly nothing in the constitution.

Moreover, much of the stimulus package itself is unconstitutional.
Bat One

If it is not clearly prohibited it is allowed. My grasp of the law is far better than yours.

Hawk,

That is one helluva an admission, counselor! Your interpretation, and undoubtedly that of every other leftwing autocratic Democrat, is that the federal government can do whatever it wants so long as there no specific constitutional provision barring the action. Whew!!!

In the first place, as someone ought to have taught you a long, time ago, the Founders’ explicit purpose was to establish a LIMITED federal government. Indeed a carefully considered reading of the Constitution and the Federalist Papers leaves no doubt whatsoever that your megalomaniacal interpretation of the Founders’ purpose is exactly the opposite of what they intended.

The point of the Constitution was to limit the government to those powers specifically enumerated, reserving all others to the states and the people. That things have become so convoluted and disoriented, the very antithesis of what was intended, is, in no small part due to a pestiferous overabundance of attorneys-at-law.
Hawk

provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States

This clause allows them to spend for the general welfare. General welfare is a very nebulous term so basically congress gets to define it. So basically they can spend for anything. The Constitution does not prohibit them from giving the money to the state legislature, so they can give it to the state legislature if they want. How the states appropriate the money will be up to state law and their own constitution. But there is nothing in the federal constitution that makes this unconstitutional.
http://www.nomatomipavo.blogspot.com/ Steve

I am but an uneducated little right wing blogger but I believe I ready somewhere, long ago in my Catholic school days, that any powers not EXPRESSLY defined for the Federal Government were to fall to the States.

I’m sure the bigger brains here will correct any inaccuracies in my memory.
Kramer

Fast Eddy Rendel here in the former great state of Pennsylvania voted yes to the money, no to the tuna salad and diet coke….
Tarmangani

Hawk should probably be renamed Dove since he is obviously one of the “gimme” neo-Keyns.

This type of bill was tried before with Madison (the father of the constitution, Hawk) with the Bonus Bill. He decided that repairing roads and canals was not the job of the federal government as described in the Constitution. Since this is the main thrust (shovel-ready projects) of this boondoggle and the rest falls even further from the obligations of the fed, it is obviously unconstitutional.

I am not blaming Obama, however. It would take a constitutional scholar to know this.

Oops!
eneils Bailey

For one thing, the federalist papers aren’t law.

And ignorance does not pass itself off as being intelligence.
http://sayanythingblog.com/readers/entry/homosexuality_is_wrong_-_a_compendium move_zig

Um, 10th Amendment?

It’s been pretty much gutted, as have the rest of our rights.
docdave

that any powers not EXPRESSLY defined for the Federal Government were to fall to the States

Bingo Steve. Give that man a cigar. The tenth amendment of the constitution says “The powers not delegated to the United States by the constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.”
eneils Bailey

Governor Sanford,

Clearly this is aimed at South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford, probably the only governor in the country who understands that more federal spending at the state level isn’t going to fix anything.

Hooray for my Governor….

This crap of a stimulus bill could not draw responsible people to a hoot-an-anty, piss ants to a picnic, rats to shit in a sewer, buzzards to dead road kill, but it will draw the mis-led Americans that this is “Hope and Change,” and that belief, will now suddenly make my life better.
Tim

Hawk: People have been trying to stretch the general welfare clause to mean what it doesn’t for years. Here’s what James Madison had to say in a letter dated March 3, 1817:

To refer the power in question to the clause “to provide for common defense and general welfare” would be contrary to the established and consistent rules of interpretation, as rendering the special and careful enumeration of powers which follow the clause nugatory and improper. Such a view of the Constitution would have the effect of giving to Congress a general power of legislation instead of the defined and limited one hitherto understood to belong to them, the terms “common defense and general welfare” embracing every object and act within the purview of a legislative trust.
Bill

The constitution uses the phrase ‘promote’ the general welfare, not ‘provide for’ the general welfare.
dawneyr

Someone whose very holding of an office is in violation of the US constitution wouldn’t care about other violations especially if they furthered his agenda.
John the Econ

Perhaps the question ought to be, is a “stimulus” even constitutional? A far amount of what is in this bill clearly is not. But then again, the Constitution has been little more than an inconvenience to these people for some time.
Hawk

Moreover, much of the stimulus package itself is unconstitutional.

Please explain. You not liking it does not make it unconstitutional.
Hawk

But what I’m wondering is…is this even constitutional?

Yes

Can the federal government just arbitrarily decide to freeze a Governor out of the budgeting process?

Yes

What basis does the federal government have to do such a thing?

Article I Section 8
http://sayanythingblog.com robport

Please explain.

Says a guy who just made a vague reference to a rather long section of the Constitution.
http://suitepotato.blogspot.com/ sayanything-4808

In point of fact it does not have that right. The process of spending money at the state level is not different from the that of passing laws. The monies must be spent based on the legislative body deciding as to how they would do it and if bicameral the two sides must come to a reconciliation and a final plan passing both sides by majority vote then must be signed by the acting executive officer, which is the governor unless said governor is incapacitated legally or physically or otherwise.

This bill’s provisions will be tied up in federal and state courts for years.
http://sayanythingblog.com robport

This clause allows them to spend for the general welfare.

Of the United States as a whole. Not the various sovereign states individually.

But if we use your interpretation of that clause, we’d be assuming that the founding fathers intended the various state governments to be little more than extensions of the federal government.

Anyone who has read the federalist papers knows otherwise.

Again, your laughably weak grasp of history and law amuses.
http://sayanythingblog.com robport

Section 8 says a lot of things, Hawk. You want to quote something specific that gives Congress the right to freeze out a Governor when it comes to state-level spending?

SayAnythingBlog.com

Stimulus Bill Has Provision To Bypass Any Governor Declining The Funds

Create a SAB Readerblog

Recent Comments