The Punish Mark Sanford Amendment; Update: Durbin defends
Buried in the porkulus conference report is a provision specifically targeting governors who would exercise the choice to refuse stimulus money.
It’s an obvious end-run around the authority of South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford, the outspoken GOP fiscal conservative who has staunchly opposed the behemoth federal package.
Read it:
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.
This seems blatantly illegal — a complete federal usurpation of states’ budget processes.
Do the members of the Senate GOP Turncoat Caucus approve?
***
11:15am Eastern. Sen. Dick Durbin is on the Senate floor defending the Punish Mark Sanford Amendment. He scoffs at the “political” views of fiscally conservative state executives and eagerly describes how he will make end-runs around those governors.
See what others have said
Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.
Trackbacks
- Mark Sanford Might Just Be Crazy Enough « JoHNBRoDiGaNDoTCoM
- What’s a little federalism between friends | The Cranky Conservative
- The Punish Mark Sanford Amendment; Update: Durbin defends — But As For Me
- Governor Mark Sanford Speaks Conservative Truth To Begala’s Alliterative Nonsense « Jane Q. Republican
- AllMilitary.com - Official Military Blog, Military Updates » Blog Archive » The Saturday Claw 2-14-09
- Bear Creek Ledger » State’s Rights
- If you oppose stimulus, don't take the money - Political Wrinkles
- Michelle Malkin » Will the legality of the Punish Mark Sanford Amendment be tested?
- Money Quotes « The French Cowboy’s Plains
- ADF Alliance Alert » The Punish Mark Sanford Amendment: “Stimulus” usurpation of state authority
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Categories: fiscal stimulus
Pundit & Pundette
» Reports of Broder's retirement greatly exaggerated
AmSpecBlog
» The Road Ahead in the Health Care BattleNewsBusters.org
» Harry Reid Rips WaPo's David Broder On Senate FloorLegal Insurrection
» Yes, It Really Is That BadRiehl World View
» Burka Barbie w/ Western Outfits And Removable Head?Stop The ACLU
» It’s Burkha Barbie! No, Seriously. I’m Not Kidding. ReallyWeekly Standard
» Beamer: Why'd Obama Recuse Himself on Terror Trials?
This effort needs more support, publicity, and active Conservative engagement.
Walter William’s great article on the subject.
I believe a war was fought over states rights.
In regards to the whole Governor vs. legislature debate,
and States’ rights vs. Federal Government,
Watch this video, from 1:25 to 3:30, and see what Charlie Rangel said.
See the bigger picture. This is about getting that $800 billion to the Democrat base as quickly as possible.
In the past, legislatures got in the way, so that is why they wanted to go through the governor and force his/her hand. They added back in the legislature as only a “fall back” plan.
The bigger story here is that this is not about “economic stimulus”.
This is about WEALTH REDISTRIBUTION.
I still think Obama knows this porkulus bill is gonna fail. When it fails we go bankrupt. A perfect time for the Commies to step in and nationalize everything ( part of the plan to destroy capitalism). When the FEDs own the grocery stores you better watch out.. Hungry people will do about anything.
Repeating for emphasis…
Watch this video, from 1:25 to 3:30, and see what Charlie Rangel said.
This is not about “economic stimulus”.
This is about WEALTH REDISTRIBUTION.
I have long been of the opinion that these guys are neither naive nor inexperienced. They know exactly what they do and the outcome of their actions. However, they are dependent on the apathy of the public. To paraphrase Yamamoto about the US after Pearl, they should fear that all they are doing is waking a sleeping giant and filling it with great resolve.
genso: With all the moves over the years, it is hard to keep track.
You got me figured out!
Exactly. Those who do not understand this simple point are ignorant.
This is a PLAN to topple this country. The CFR is our enemy. Globalists want nothing more than to get our constitution out of their way.
Obama = CFR
Biden = CFR
They are puppets on strings.
I wouldn’t be surprised if Durbin was one of those people griping about Bush’s supposed abuses of the Constitution. “Do as I say, not as I do.”
So, let’s say the stimulus passes and the country doesn’t go bankrupt or collapse. Will you guys quit with all the conspiracy theories then?
The amount of stimulus a state receives should be computed as a percentage of the representatives from that state that voted for it. The GOP hypocrites who voted against it will still be there with their hands out. Sorry, can’t have it both ways. They can explain to their constituents why the bridges in their state are falling apart while the next state over got a $1 billion to fix theirs.
Communists.
Exactly!! Finally something we can agree on! If the states dont want any part of this stimulus they should be allowed to completely opt out of it! Of course, they should not pay ANY of the future TAXES that will be required to pay for it either!
They can completely opt out of it.
Nailed it, Freddy!
Besides, wasn’t the Democrat meme that Clinton fixed the infrastructure back in the nineties? Apparently he didn’t do a very good job.
So bluesoc…they can COMPLETELY opt out. So can they opt out of paying for it?
I think I’ve heard you socialists proclaim exactly the opposite about other stuff like social security. How come you don’t want to let me opt out of Social Security/Medicare?
Um, didn’t I read in another thread that Governors are being FORCED to take the stimulus money?
Here it is…
Although it isn’t clear whether the legislatures can reject it without consequence. Anyone?
And we DO know, that even if they don’t take it, they’ll be stuck paying for it. How’s THAT for an Opt Out plan…
I think you’re confusing a few things.
States cannot opt out of Congressional taxes. Congress is not actually taxing the states, but instead are taxing the people directly. The states have no power over such taxes. States cannot opt out of this because it would be an exercise of a power they do not posses. The people, however, can opt out, but only through representatives.
What the states do have the power to opt out of is the feds using them as an instrument of their spending. If the states did not have the ability to opt out of this, the spending bill would be unconstitutional.
So I suppose you are right in one respect. States cannot opt out of federal taxes (placed on the people) because it would be unconstitutional.
That isn’t true. If it was, this would be blatantly unconstitutional. I do not think Congress would take such a chance.
The states won’t be forced to pay for it. The PEOPLE in the states will be forced to pay for it. That’s an important distinction.
They call that bribery and it’s illegal. For now.
And MOST OF US WANT THAT.
We do?
Why would you want that? Please explain.
bluesoc – I noticed you responded to the post where I was unsure, but failed to respond to the one where I LINKED to proof that they ARE doing an end-run around the Governors and it IS unconstitutional.
buzzardhaspooped – Ahhh, now we get it. You’re on welfare and like it.
It’s called STEALING. Redistribution of wealth actually breaks two commandments. Thou shalt not steal and Thou shalt not covet.
Grow up and earn your own living.
You linked to THIS article. Was that a mistake?
bluesoc – Please respond to the proof that this so-called stimulus bill provides an end-run around the governors, which IS unconstitutional.
I’ve never claimed that it doesn’t provide an “end-run around the governors” (check my posts if you don’t believe me.) What I have been arguing is that doing so is NOT unconstitutional.
Dear Bluesoc,
I’ll concede If I am wrong. What will do if we are right? Oh I forgot you are already a Lt. in the Obama army so you will have that silverlining. Us poor Conservatives will be rounded up and placed in detention centers. So you are in a win win situation. Typical.
What does that even mean?
Go to school.
Earn a degree.
Get a job.
Dex: Fixed it for ya!
eagledroppping: So did Jesse James, Ma Barker, Bonnie and Clyde, etc. They went about it with guns. SFNan and Dingy Reid are doing it with laws, but the result is the same — we get hosed, others get enriched.
the camps! the camps are coming!!
/sarc
no seriously though…..bluesoc, the country is ALREADY bankrupt. We are heading towards a collapse as we speak… (have you seen the price of gold lately?) And what these politicians are doing is out in the open for anyone with the ability to connect simple dots to see (that’s what the media was supposed to do), so as far as it being “conspiracy theory”….it’s a conspiracy alright…but not theory. And if you ask me how the price of gold has anything to do with looming collapse, then it will just confirm to me that you wouldn’t understand the depth of it all anyway.
Not a problem carrying in a vehicle, even without a CWP.
SC Code of Law §16-23-20. Unlawful carrying of handgun; exceptions.
It is unlawful for anyone to carry about the person any handgun, whether concealed or not, except as follows, unless otherwise specifically prohibited by law:
9) a person in a vehicle if the handgun is:
(a) secured in a closed glove compartment, closed console, closed trunk, or in a closed container secured by an integral fastener and transported in the luggage compartment of the vehicle; however, this item is not violated if the glove compartment, console, or trunk is opened in the presence of a law enforcement officer for the sole purpose of retrieving a driver’s license, registration, or proof of insurance; or
(b) concealed on or about his person, and he has a valid concealed weapons permit pursuant to the provisions of Article 4, Chapter 31, Title 23;
There’s also a bill before the legislature right now to allow CWP holders to carry under the seat as well…
Maybe this isn’t so terrible after all. This could provide some political cover for a guy like Sanford. You can refuse to request any funds from this boondoggle knowing full well the state legislatures will be lining up at the trough.
I’m telling you, folks, an “It CAN happen here” chill went up me when I read that amendment that I haven’t felt since 9/11.
In the same way that Maxine Waters’ slip of the tongue in May 2008 saying “This liberal will be all about socializing” oil companies took on new weight as she ranted and raved that the banks had to dance to her tune because they were forced to take bailout money. Watch the first couple of minutes of this 60 Minutes interview in which Ken Lewis of Bank of America agrees that Paulson’s “bailout” was actually an ultimatum (”Take it, or take it,” as Lesley Stahl says). Lewis scrambles when Stahl plays devil’s advocate and asks, “Is this socialism?” at 3:45.
ArizonaNeanderthal wrote:
It’s been less than an month, and despite all the comparisons of Obama to Lincoln, he’s already acting like Wilson, who had an industrial strength Messiah complex.
A distinction without a difference, it seems. Really, now. Since we’re talking the stimulus bill and the economic burden that will follow (whether a state “opts out” or not), who in this country doesn’t “pay for it” besides the people?