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.

Comments

1. #1
   On February 13th, 2009 at 11:00 am, PBoilermaker said:

   Most Obama-loving Americans are too stupid (yes, stupid) to care.

   Unfortunately, these people also control much of what the general population is told (or not) about such things.

2. #2
   On February 13th, 2009 at 11:01 am, RedDog said:

   2) funds be used to create jobs and promote economic growth.

   Why not just play god and declare that peace and prosperity reign on the earth henceforth and forevermore? These creatures really are insane. Clueless in the extreme.

3. #3
   On February 13th, 2009 at 11:02 am, nail49 said:

   You vill take zee monee or else!

   Vee haf vays of deeling wiz such insubordination!

4. #4
   On February 13th, 2009 at 11:05 am, b-cat said:

   2) funds be used to create jobs and promote economic growth.

   We can’t all work at the Department of Motor Vehicles.

5. #5
   On February 13th, 2009 at 11:05 am, TXGator said:

   Talk about being “shovel ready”.
   Millions couldn’t shovel this @#$%# fast enough.
   I’ll say it again, this man, Obama, is dangerous, but he has millions of accomplices.
   If his agenda succeeds, America as we have always known and loved in our hearts will become a much different place.
   But, we already knew that, didn’t we?

6. #6
   On February 13th, 2009 at 11:07 am, Wethal said:

   Specter won’t worry. Fast Eddie Rendell (D-PA) thinks the stimulus has passed and is already planning how to spend it.

7. #7
   On February 13th, 2009 at 11:07 am, Paul Revere said:

   Nice try, but the South Carolina legislature is run by a super-duper majority of Republicans. Not Yankee Repulcians either. However, that is some scary crap!

8. #8
   On February 13th, 2009 at 11:09 am, flmom said:

   (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.

   In the words of Don Corleone, “I’m gonna make you an offer you can’t refuse”.

9. #9
   On February 13th, 2009 at 11:09 am, genso said:

   This is outrageous. To take away the power of a Gov. to lead his own state is the height of corruption and immorality. There is no excuse for this except petty, racial politics. To have a representative from one state dictate the actions of the Gov. of another state in such a blatant gesture of hostility toward the sovereignty of the state that all should be outraged. Yet our Congress does nothing. We’ve already fought one war because of similar actions against the states by the federal government, and against the state of South Carolina in particular. If there is ever a good enough reason for revolt against the federal government, this is one.

10. #10
    On February 13th, 2009 at 11:10 am, Just A Grunt said:

    Where the hell does the US Congress get off on telling a state, any state, how to conduct it’s business?
    They sure don’t seemed worried when governors are selecting Senators?

11. #11
    On February 13th, 2009 at 11:11 am, TXGator said:

    Who wants revolution? Probably no one, but we NEED it.

12. #12
    On February 13th, 2009 at 11:18 am, labwrs said:

    This is the kind of arrogance that pushed the South into intransigence before the War of Northern Aggression. This time, MANY MORE States will be involved…are we looking at the beginning of something? I think Washington is deaf to what most people think and State’s rights are NOT to be legislated EXCEPT BY WE THE PEOPLE!

13. #13
    On February 13th, 2009 at 11:19 am, PhredE said:

    The most honest/ethical/transparent Congress in recent history, eh?

    What they did in selectively removing E-Verify in the conference committee markup – albeit, quietly, with no input from the other side, ignoring a lot of public input (but kowtowing to USCoC, and other interest groups) – tells me they don’t care about jobs for Americans.

14. #14
    On February 13th, 2009 at 11:19 am, wighttrasch said:

    hahaha! and if the State Legislature doesn’t approve?? Is there a hidden clause saying that the local ACLU office can then force the state to take it?

15. #15
    On February 13th, 2009 at 11:20 am, Dexter Alarius said:

    I’m sorry, what part of the Constitution enumerated the power to the Federal Government to override the Chief Executive of a state?

    Amendment 10 –
    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.

16. #16
    On February 13th, 2009 at 11:23 am, onlybeef42 said:

    Michelle

    With all due respect…

    Lets keep quite on this one. We may have found a way to have the bill declared unconstitutional and kill the porkulus liberal style (in the courts).

17. #17
    On February 13th, 2009 at 11:23 am, EonTopaz10 said:

    So how do we go about getting the Supreme Court to “check and balance” this issue? Who has to take this to court? The GOP? “Joe Citizen”? Gov Sanford?

18. #18
    On February 13th, 2009 at 11:24 am, mattymatt10 said:

    I’m down, TXGator. Just tell me when and where. But not by using “Twitter.”

    I’m no Constitutional scholar, but isn’t there something in there about powers reserved for the several states, or the people? Pretty sure there’s nothing in the Constitution authorizing Congress to tell states how to handle their budgeting.

    WorldNetDaily has been reporting on something like a dozen states that are adopting letters asserting their state sovereignty under the 10 Amendment to the Constitution, and fighting back against the overreach of the gasbags in DC. Willing to bet So Carolina is on that list.

19. #19
    On February 13th, 2009 at 11:25 am, nail49 said:

    Decades of growing strife between North and South erupted in civil war on April 12, 1861, when Confederate artillery opened fire on this Federal fort in Charleston Harbor. Fort Sumter surrendered 34 hours later. Union forces would try for nearly four years to take it back.

    That is Charleston Harbor in Charleston, South Carolina. Perhaps the Civil War, Part Deux will begin where the first Civil War began.

    Mrs.nail49 and I love South Carolina, perhaps now is the time to move back there!

    If we do things right, this time the federals won’t get it back!

20. #20
    On February 13th, 2009 at 11:27 am, genso said:

    Mrs.nail49 and I love South Carolina, perhaps now is the time to move back there!

    If we do things right, this time the federals won’t get it back!

    Come home. We may need you here.

21. #21
    On February 13th, 2009 at 11:28 am, onlybeef42 said:

    So how do we go about getting the Supreme Court to “check and balance” this issue? Who has to take this to court? The GOP? “Joe Citizen”? Gov Sanford?

    The best standing would be a governor of a state who’s legislature used the provision.
    Possibly a citizen of that state could bring suit too as they elect the governor who’s power was surpassed.

22. #22
    On February 13th, 2009 at 11:30 am, labwrs said:

    DONT push a Southern Gov…the rest of them will line up right behind him! This is MADNESS…have any of those childish amateurs in the White House even READ the CONSTITUTION?

23. #23
    On February 13th, 2009 at 11:33 am, Rogue Cheddar said:

    So much for State autonomy.

24. #24
    On February 13th, 2009 at 11:36 am, William Teach said:

    Say, I wonder if Mr. Barack “I was a constitutional teacher” Obama will have any issues with this violation of the 10th Amendment?

    Na. Dumb question. Since it is something he is gunning for, we can put this in the category of “living Constitution.”

25. #25
    On February 13th, 2009 at 11:37 am, Two Dogs said:

    I do realize that Mississippi is always looked upon as a state chock full of hicks and rubes, but our Governor Haley Barbour and our Democrat state house are probably the real culprits for this “Sanford” amendment. Barbour stated outright almost two months ago that we would not take any Fed money and our legislature immediately took up debate on how they could get around the governor.

26. #26
    On February 13th, 2009 at 11:39 am, ArizonaNeanderthal said:

    The Liberal/Left has been opposed to the concept of the Sovereign States since at least Woodrow Wilson. They consider the states mere administrative districts.

    Our Constitution? A “mere Bill of Negative Rights by a bunch of dead white guys“. Woodrow Wilson was the first President I know of to openly call for ignoring or replacing the Constitution. BroBama has come awfully close.

27. #27
    On February 13th, 2009 at 11:39 am, nuss said:

    These are the states that are currently declaring sovereignty: Washington, New Hampshire, Arizona, Montana, Michigan, Missouri, Oklahoma, California, and Georgia. They have all introduced bills and resolutions declaring sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment. The following states are considering doing the same: Colorado, Hawaii, Pennsylvania, Arkansas, Idaho, Indiana, Alaska, Kansas, Alabama, Nevada, Maine, and Illinois. So far So. Carolinia is on either list…perhaps that will change now.

28. #28
    On February 13th, 2009 at 11:40 am, genso said:

    On February 13th, 2009 at 11:39 am, ArizonaNeanderthal said:

    The Liberal/Left has been opposed to the concept of the Sovereign States since at least Woodrow Wilson. They consider the states mere administrative districts.

    Our Constitution? A “mere Bill of Negative Rights by a bunch of dead white guys“. Woodrow Wilson was the first President I know of to openly call for ignoring or replacing the Constitution. BroBama has come awfully close.

    They are called provinces in China.

29. #29
    On February 13th, 2009 at 11:41 am, MNUSMCDavid said:

    This is blatantly unconstitutional. Any governor who refuses the porkulus and the feds try to end around said governor….. should file a federal charge immediately.

30. #30
    On February 13th, 2009 at 11:41 am, nail49 said:

    Come home. We may need you here.

    genso: We are seriously considering getting out of Dodge while the getting is good.

    Sumter is a nice place, not on the beach (hurricanes) but close enough!

31. #31
    On February 13th, 2009 at 11:43 am, genso said:

    On February 13th, 2009 at 11:41 am, nail49 said:

    Come home. We may need you here.

    genso: We are seriously considering getting out of Dodge while the getting is good.

    Sumter is a nice place, not on the beach (hurricanes) but close enough!

    Ha. I grew up in Sumter out on White’s Mill Pond on the Bishopville Hwy. I still love that area.

32. #32
    On February 13th, 2009 at 11:44 am, nuss said:

    Oops. I meant …So. Carolina in not on either list…

33. #33
    On February 13th, 2009 at 11:44 am, nail49 said:

    They are called provinces in China

    genso: Gulags by the Soviets…

34. #34
    On February 13th, 2009 at 11:47 am, onlybeef42 said:

    These are the states that are currently declaring sovereignty: Washington, New Hampshire, Arizona, Montana, Michigan, Missouri, Oklahoma, California, and Georgia. They have all introduced bills and resolutions declaring sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment. The following states are considering doing the same: Colorado, Hawaii, Pennsylvania, Arkansas, Idaho, Indiana, Alaska, Kansas, Alabama, Nevada, Maine, and Illinois. So far So. Carolinia is on either list…perhaps that will change now.

    Noticed Texas isn’t on the list… hmm… O yeah we just assume we are sovereign no declaration needed

35. #35
    On February 13th, 2009 at 11:48 am, onlybeef42 said:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_status_of_Texas

36. #36
    On February 13th, 2009 at 11:48 am, Romeo13 said:

    Hmmmm….

    Each Congressman takes an oath to support and defend the Constitution.

    This is clearly un Constitutional… just like them putting in the Anti Religious portion of the bill (not allowing funds for schools which have chapels and such, like the Academies, as Congress shall make no law…).

    So, if Congress itself is being unConstitutional, does this rise to the level of TREASON… and thus, an impeachable offense?

37. #37
    On February 13th, 2009 at 11:49 am, Dexter Alarius said:

    Sumter is a nice place, not on the beach (hurricanes) but close enough!
    Ha. I grew up in Sumter out on White’s Mill Pond on the Bishopville Hwy. I still love that area.

    I spent several years there, too, at Shaw AFB. Far enough from the coast to miss the brunt of the hurricanes, close enough for golf daytrips.

38. #38
    On February 13th, 2009 at 11:51 am, Dexter Alarius said:

    Someone needs to send Turban Durbin the definition of “Federalism”.

39. #39
    On February 13th, 2009 at 11:51 am, nail49 said:

    I grew up in Sumter

    I was stationed at Myrtle Beach flying A-10′s in the late ’70′s. We shot up Poinsett Range and “warted” around at 100 feet off the deck over your head!

40. #40
    On February 13th, 2009 at 11:53 am, genso said:

    I spent several years there, too, at Shaw AFB. Far enough from the coast to miss the brunt of the hurricanes, close enough for golf daytrips.
    

    Dexter…Shaw was on the other side of town from me. We spent a lot of time fishing down near Rimini on the big lake. Golf wasn’t so big back then, but there’s some great sandhill courses in the area now. Did you ever get to play Camden CC?

41. #41
    On February 13th, 2009 at 11:54 am, DBNinKY said:

    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.

    Talk about the politics of desperation! Democrats are scared theirs will be the only fingerprints on this spending bill come election time, so they’re using it to taint as many Republicans as possible – even by force – in order to spread the blame and keep Democrat seat losses to a minimum. (I think they know they’ll lose the House with this bill’s passage, but want to at least maintain a chance of regaining it in 2012.)

    Of course the Democrats could show some self-restraint with their earmarks (and there will be earmarks – no Democrat bill is ever w/o them!) and take a lot of the pork out of this mistake of a bill, but the perception of this economic crisis as biggest financial danger since the Depression, is just the opportunity they’ve been waiting for to increase America’s dependent class and keep Democrats safe in office into perpetuity.

42. #42
    On February 13th, 2009 at 11:55 am, dominigan said:

    Anyone who signs this bill is in violation of their oath of office and should be brought up on charges of treason. And no… I’m not exaggerating.

43. #43
    On February 13th, 2009 at 11:55 am, WrathOfKhan said:

    Chuck Schumer was right: Americans don’t care. They’re more interested in Brad Pitt, Angelina Jolie, and American Idol.

44. #44
    On February 13th, 2009 at 11:55 am, genso said:

    I was stationed at Myrtle Beach flying A-10’s in the late ’70’s. We shot up Poinsett Range and “warted” around at 100 feet off the deck over your head!

    nail49…nothing stirs the soul more than being on the ground when you guys fly over. I spent time at Cherry Point, NC and got the same feeling from the Harriers.

45. #45
    On February 13th, 2009 at 11:58 am, Dexter Alarius said:

    genso, No I never played Camden. We would go up there every year for the Revolutionary Battle Re-enactment, though. Very Cool. Mostly played at Lake Marion, on base, and some of the other courses around Sumter. Played a couple courses in Myrtle Beach, but those are a little rich for my blood.

46. #46
    On February 13th, 2009 at 11:59 am, genso said:

    On February 13th, 2009 at 11:55 am, dominigan said:

    Anyone who signs this bill is in violation of their oath of office and should be brought up on charges of treason. And no… I’m not exaggerating.

    I don’t see it as an exaggeration. I’ll go one further. Despite what the history books say, the Civil War wasn’t fought over slavery but over a similar issue concerning states’ rights.

47. #47
    On February 13th, 2009 at 12:00 pm, bluesoc said:

    I read:
    If the governor does not accept the money, the legislature can.

    If that’s correct, why are people so upset? The legislature could still reject the money. It’s not taking away the state’s autonomy.

48. #48
    On February 13th, 2009 at 12:02 pm, genso said:

    On February 13th, 2009 at 12:00 pm, bluesoc said:

    I read:
    If the governor does not accept the money, the legislature can.

    If that’s correct, why are people so upset? The legislature could still reject the money. It’s not taking away the state’s autonomy.

    It steps all over the constitutional duties of the Governor. By side-stepping the Governor, the federal government is, essentially, rewriting the state constitution.

49. #49
    On February 13th, 2009 at 12:05 pm, genso said:

    On February 13th, 2009 at 11:58 am, Dexter Alarius said:

    genso, No I never played Camden.

    Come back and we’ll go play Camden.

50. #50
    On February 13th, 2009 at 12:07 pm, bluesoc said:

    It steps all over the constitutional duties of the Governor. By side-stepping the Governor, the federal government is, essentially, rewriting the state constitution.

    As far as I know, Congress does not have to abide by any state’s constitution.

51. #51
    On February 13th, 2009 at 12:09 pm, genso said:

    On February 13th, 2009 at 12:07 pm, bluesoc said:

    It steps all over the constitutional duties of the Governor. By side-stepping the Governor, the federal government is, essentially, rewriting the state constitution.

    As far as I know, Congress does not have to abide by any state’s constitution.

    So…you don’t believe the states have a right to conduct their own affairs? Read the 10th Amendment.

    “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.”

52. #52
    On February 13th, 2009 at 12:10 pm, Dexter Alarius said:

    Come back and we’ll go play Camden.

    Cool! I’ll let you know if I come back for a visit. That’s not out of the realm of possibility. My best friend/best man/favorite golf buddy is in Sumter. At this rate, though, I’ll have to win the lottery to be able to go.

53. #53
    On February 13th, 2009 at 12:10 pm, drivingjack said:

    That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

    Are we there yet? I am not happy, nor do I feel safe with the losers running the zoo.

54. #54
    On February 13th, 2009 at 12:12 pm, nail49 said:

    I spent time at Cherry Point, NC

    My brother flew F-4′s there and at Beaufort, SC as a Jarhead while I was flying Hogs at MB.

    On the 75th anniversary of the Wright Brothers first flight, I was the low man on a 4-ship A-10 flyby at Kittyhawk. That was fun, but I was worried about my right wing dragging the sand!

55. #55
    On February 13th, 2009 at 12:14 pm, Ron said:

    So much of what is being done is questionable constitutionally. Why doesn’t the RNC IMMEDIATELY launch a lawsuit to stop some of this crap?

56. #56
    On February 13th, 2009 at 12:14 pm, genso said:

    On February 13th, 2009 at 12:10 pm, Dexter Alarius said:

    Come back and we’ll go play Camden.

    Cool! I’ll let you know if I come back for a visit. That’s not out of the realm of possibility. My best friend/best man/favorite golf buddy is in Sumter. At this rate, though, I’ll have to win the lottery to be able to go.

    For many reasons other than golf, I wish you great success. Of course, golf is a plus.

57. #57
    On February 13th, 2009 at 12:16 pm, bluesoc said:

    So…you don’t believe the states have a right to conduct their own affairs? Read the 10th Amendment.

    The 10th amendment means nothing if Congress already has the power to sidestep the state’s constitution. I believe the Supremacy Clause would give them that power.

58. #58
    On February 13th, 2009 at 12:16 pm, genso said:

    That was fun, but I was worried about my right wing dragging the sand!

    nail49…most here would like the opportunity to have that worry. God bless you for your service.

59. #59
    On February 13th, 2009 at 12:20 pm, genso said:

    On February 13th, 2009 at 12:16 pm, bluesoc said:

    So…you don’t believe the states have a right to conduct their own affairs? Read the 10th Amendment.

    The 10th amendment means nothing if Congress already has the power to sidestep the state’s constitution. I believe the Supremacy Clause would give them that power.

    The key to that is “when they conflict” I don’t think you can write a law to create a conflict in order to invoke that. Additionally, the intent is to single out certain states despite the language. I’m not the constitutional expert that Obama is, but I think there’s enough there to challenge.

60. #60
    On February 13th, 2009 at 12:20 pm, Dexter Alarius said:

    I believe the Supremacy Clause would give them that power.

    You mean this one:

    This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

    That just says the US Constitution trumps State Constitutions or Laws. There would still have to be authority in the US Constitution for Congress to pull the stunts they are trying. I don’t think they have that authority.

61. #61
    On February 13th, 2009 at 12:22 pm, sonofdy said:

    They tried pushing federal power onto the southern states once before in 1861. How did that work out?

    The 10th amendment means nothing if Congress already has the power to sidestep the state’s constitution. I believe the Supremacy Clause would give them that power.

    So thats another constitutional amendment that means nothing to the left. Thats 3 right now they have no reguard for.

62. #62
    On February 13th, 2009 at 12:24 pm, wighttrasch said:

    the Civil War wasn’t fought over slavery but over a similar issue concerning states’ rights.

    Sorry; I disagree. It was a war to end slavery.

63. #63
    On February 13th, 2009 at 12:25 pm, sonofdy said:

    So this parft of the law effectively destroys the office of governor. Why stop there?

64. #64
    On February 13th, 2009 at 12:26 pm, genso said:

    On February 13th, 2009 at 12:24 pm, wighttrasch said:

    the Civil War wasn’t fought over slavery but over a similar issue concerning states’ rights.

    Sorry; I disagree. It was a war to end slavery.

    Another classic example of public education.

65. #65
    On February 13th, 2009 at 12:27 pm, sonofdy said:

    Sorry; I disagree. It was a war to end slavery.

    NNNOOOO it was a war over the states rights to choose to be slave states or not. The southern cry was STATES RIGHTS, not SLAVERY!!!!

    Most people in the south didn’t even own slaves.

66. #66
    On February 13th, 2009 at 12:27 pm, onlybeef42 said:

    The 10th amendment means nothing if Congress already has the power to sidestep the state’s constitution. I believe the Supremacy Clause would give them that power.

    They 10th Amendment modifies the Supremacy Clause. As it is latter in time and of the same force (part of the Constitution), a conflict between the two should (if interpreted correctly) be resolved in favor of the Amendment.

    For example – Slavery provisions in the Constitution are trumped by the later abolishment amendments

67. #67
    On February 13th, 2009 at 12:27 pm, bluesoc said:

    That just says the US Constitution trumps State Constitutions or Laws. There would still have to be authority in the US Constitution for Congress to pull the stunts they are trying

    I’m not sure what stunt you are saying they don’t have the authority to overcome. You seem to have conceded that they can overcome a state constitution.

    Are you arguing that the Constitution does not grant a power to offer funds to the governor and then to the legislature? I would think that would fall under the “necessary and proper” clause.

68. #68
    On February 13th, 2009 at 12:28 pm, sonofdy said:

    Cuases of the civil war

69. #69
    On February 13th, 2009 at 12:30 pm, sonofdy said:

    Are you arguing that the Constitution does not grant a power to offer funds to the governor and then to the legislature?

    Yes. The bugets and spending of the state are states rights issues.

70. #70
    On February 13th, 2009 at 12:31 pm, wighttrasch said:

    ooooo. Insults. How far we have fallen.

71. #71
    On February 13th, 2009 at 12:34 pm, bluesoc said:

    Yes. The bugets and spending of the state are states rights issues.

    You’re correct in that Congress cannot force the states to spend money, but they’re not doing that here. They’re giving them a choice. The form of the choice is contrary to the state constitution, but the Supremacy clause will take care of that.

72. #72
    On February 13th, 2009 at 12:34 pm, sonofdy said:

    Time to bring back nullification.

73. #73
    On February 13th, 2009 at 12:35 pm, genso said:

    On February 13th, 2009 at 12:31 pm, wighttrasch said:

    ooooo. Insults. How far we have fallen.

    My apologies. You are correct to call me out on that. However, your comment about the war was simple and devoid of all the facts. It I reflected the common view taught in school and highlights the well-known saying about how the victors write the history books. It behooves us all to seek additional sources to understand the truth of such issues.

74. #74
    On February 13th, 2009 at 12:35 pm, Dexter Alarius said:

    You seem to have conceded that they can overcome a state constitution.

    Negatory. The US Constitution can overcome a State Constitution. There would have to be authority in the US Constitution to allow the US Congress to override a Governor. Congress can offer whatever it wants, but if a Governor refuses I don’t believe the US Constitution gives Congress the authority to cram it down his throat.

75. #75
    On February 13th, 2009 at 12:35 pm, bluesoc said:

    They 10th Amendment modifies the Supremacy Clause. As it is latter in time and of the same force (part of the Constitution), a conflict between the two should (if interpreted correctly) be resolved in favor of the Amendment.

    I don’t believe I’ve ever heard that interpretation before.

    Do you mean to say that even if the bill passed by congress is within it’s power, if it conflicts with a state law, it will be struck down?

76. #76
    On February 13th, 2009 at 12:35 pm, sonofdy said:

    You’re correct in that Congress cannot force the states to spend money, but they’re not doing that here. They’re giving them a choice. The form of the choice is contrary to the state constitution, but the Supremacy clause will take care of that.

    NO IT DOESN’T

    NULLIFICATION!!!

77. #77
    On February 13th, 2009 at 12:38 pm, bluesoc said:

    I don’t believe the US Constitution gives Congress the authority to cram it down his throat.

    You’re correct in that it can’t force a governor to enforce a law.

    Again, though, that’s not the case here. The governor is given a choice. If he rejects it, then the legislature is given a choice. No states/governors are being forced.

78. #78
    On February 13th, 2009 at 12:40 pm, bluesoc said:

    NO IT DOESN’T

    NULLIFICATION!!!

    Are you saying the supremacy clause does not overcome the state constitution?

79. #79
    On February 13th, 2009 at 12:43 pm, sonofdy said:

    I am saying that a dictorial federal government needs to be stoped. It is not the feds job to force things like this on the states, period. This abortion of a law is completely wrong and will destroy this country. The states need to start saying ENOUGH!!!

    Nullify the law in the state borders.

80. #80
    On February 13th, 2009 at 12:44 pm, Dexter Alarius said:

    The governor is given a choice. If he rejects it, then the legislature is given a choice. No states/governors are being forced.

    This sounds like the classic “if Mom says no, ask Dad” tactic. I would say it would depend on what the State Constitution says about who has budget authority. It seems to be circumventing the division of powers.

    Of course, even if a state legislature accepts federal money in spite of the governor, I would think the governor as the executive could refuse to spend it.

    It appears to be a messy issue.

81. #81
    On February 13th, 2009 at 12:45 pm, bluesoc said:

    It is not the feds job to force things like this on the states, period. This abortion of a law is completely wrong and will destroy this country.

    Then it’s up to the legislature to say no.

82. #82
    On February 13th, 2009 at 12:45 pm, sonofdy said:

    It is an end run arround the 10th amendment and violates the concept of states rights.

83. #83
    On February 13th, 2009 at 12:46 pm, genso said:

    It appears to be a messy issue.

    Dexter….petty liberal politics.

84. #84
    On February 13th, 2009 at 12:47 pm, sonofdy said:

    Then it’s up to the legislature to say no.

    That depends on the states laws, oh thats right, this destroys the states laws. I gets its just a totalitarian dicate from washington DC forcing liberal ideals on the unwilling states.

85. #85
    On February 13th, 2009 at 12:48 pm, bluesoc said:

    I would say it would depend on what the State Constitution says about who has budget authority. It seems to be circumventing the division of powers.

    I don’t think the state constitution matters at all because of the Supremacy Clause.

    I would think the governor as the executive could refuse to spend it.

    That’s an interesting point. I have to think about that one for a bit.

86. #86
    On February 13th, 2009 at 12:48 pm, nail49 said:

    God bless you for your service.

    genso: I was honored to serve.

    I will gladly serve again to keep our country free — even if it means taking up arms against those who would deny us our rights!

    BTW, does SC allow concealed carry?

87. #87
    On February 13th, 2009 at 12:48 pm, wighttrasch said:

    We will agree to disagree, genso.

    I don’t want to use this forum for a debate on that bellicose time.

88. #88
    On February 13th, 2009 at 12:49 pm, bluesoc said:

    That depends on the states laws, oh thats right, this destroys the states laws. I gets its just a totalitarian dicate from washington DC forcing liberal ideals on the unwilling states.

    But the states can refuse the money! How are they being forced to do anything?

89. #89
    On February 13th, 2009 at 12:53 pm, MarcoPolo said:

    Lets keep quite on this one. We may have found a way to have the bill declared unconstitutional and kill the porkulus liberal style (in the courts).

    I think the courts have ruled that finding a particular clause unconstitutional doesn’t negate the entire bill.

90. #90
    On February 13th, 2009 at 12:56 pm, genso said:

    BTW, does SC allow concealed carry?

    nail49….I’m disappointed you had to ask. Yes. That said, there’s some question about transporting a loaded weapon in a vehicle even with a CWP. Two workarounds most do here. Some lock them in the glove compartment, others don’t get caught speeding.

91. #91
    On February 13th, 2009 at 12:56 pm, MarcoPolo said:

    You’re correct in that it can’t force a governor to enforce a law.

    Again, though, that’s not the case here. The governor is given a choice. If he rejects it, then the legislature is given a choice. No states/governors are being forced.

    Are you serious? It is actually writing state law by giving the legislature a power it did not previously have.

    That’s unconstitutional.

    Not that anybody freaking cares about the constitution any more. Nobody in the GOP cited it much when cheering the Patriot Act on, I noticed.

92. #92
    On February 13th, 2009 at 12:58 pm, nail49 said:

    But the states can refuse the money!

    bluesoc: It pits the governor against his own legislature. There may be (D) governors and (R) legislatures (and vice versa) but what gives the federal government the right to get involved therein? This is indeed a state’s right issue.

    If a legislature passes a budget and the governor vetoes it, but the legislature overrides the veto, fine, that is how it is supposed to work.

    On the other hand, if the federal government sends $$$ to the state and the governor doesn’t want to be beholding to all the strings surely attached thereto, what gives the federal government the right to step in?

93. #93
    On February 13th, 2009 at 12:59 pm, vickisoup said:

    On February 13th, 2009 at 11:02 am, nail49 said:
    You vill take zee monee or else!

    Vee haf vays of deeling wiz such insubordination!

    Exactly. Who would have thought that we would end up here so soon after the enthronement of the One? It’s frightening.
    And to bluesoc, if you think legislators and governors see eye-to-eye, you have never been to California.
    And to nuss #27, what was the source of that information again? Surely we can rise up and stand with our State’s assertion of their 10th Amendment rights!
    Now where did I leave my musket….

94. #94
    On February 13th, 2009 at 1:02 pm, sonofdy said:

    Not to mention the requirements for the states to match some of those funds…

95. #95
    On February 13th, 2009 at 1:06 pm, bluesoc said:

    what gives the federal government the right to step in?

    The “necessary and proper” and “supremacy” clauses

    And to bluesoc, if you think legislators and governors see eye-to-eye, you have never been to California.

    I don’t think I made any such assertion.

96. #96
    On February 13th, 2009 at 1:11 pm, nail49 said:

    I don’t think I made any such assertion

    blusoc: While vickisoup searches for the musket, I will say there likely wasn’t such an assertion. We are just trying to impress upon you that when a governor and state legislature don’t see eye-to-eye, what gives the federal government the right to step in?

    If the legislature wants federal $$ and the governor doesn’t, there will be elections. Let the people decide!

97. #97
    On February 13th, 2009 at 1:17 pm, thetoysurgeon said:

    I am from SC and stand behind our Sanford. What gets me is that they are making up financial freedoms to fund everything. If they are being that creative why didn’t they just reset everything back to 0 and start over. Stupid Dems.

98. #98
    On February 13th, 2009 at 1:19 pm, thetoysurgeon said:

    Wait till Obama/congress orders you to buy big ticket items. If you don’t comply then you have to give it to the FEDS as a” living tax” I see this coming.

99. #99
    On February 13th, 2009 at 1:19 pm, DerKrieger said:

    This effort needs more support, publicity, and active Conservative engagement.

    Walter William’s great article on the subject.

100. #100
     On February 13th, 2009 at 1:20 pm, thetoysurgeon said:

     I believe a war was fought over states rights.