Will the legality of the Punish Mark Sanford Amendment be tested?
Last week before the Generational Theft Act was rammed through, I called the sneaky provision to prevent governors from turning down stimulus money the “Punish Mark Sanford Amendment.”
South Carolina Rep. and House Majority Whip Jim Clyburn stuck the language into the bill to target GOP S.C. Gov. Mark Sanford — a leading fiscal conservative critic of porkulus — and usurp his executive authority. A reminder of the language:
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.
Is this legal? Will it be tested? Sanford is reportedly weighing his decision on stimulus funding as we speak.
And though targeted at Sanford, the amendment could be wielded against other fiscally conservative governors.
Louisiana’s GOP Gov. Bobby Jindal may not take some of the porkulus money, either. Will his executive authority be overriden by the Clyburn provision, too?
Texas GOP Gov. Rick Perry may also decline the money.
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
- Will the legality of the Punish Mark Sanford Amendment be tested? — But As For Me
- Will the legality of the Punish Mark Sanford Amendment be tested? — But As For Me
- Jindal vs. Obama: Round One « JoHNBRoDiGaNDoTCoM
- Republican Leader John Boehner | Boehner Questions Constitutionality of “Stimulus” Mandate That Undercuts Governors
- Bobby Jindal sends B. Hussein Obama a strong message - may not take the porkulus money | Fire Andrea Mitchell!
- Aargh! And I mean that sincerely. : Pursuing Holiness
- Michelle Malkin » GOP govs, stimulus strings, and the legality of the Punish Mark Sanford Amendment
- Hot Air » Blog Archive » Heart-ache: Sanford probably will accept stimulus money
- If Only Every State Was As Prepared As Alaska | Caffeinated Thoughts
- Palin acepta rechaza parte del Plan de Estímulo federal para Alaska « Sarah Palin en Español
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Categories: fiscal stimulus
Power Line
» More From the East Anglia Archives
American Thinker
» Sarah Palin and the low ebb of the cultural leftRedstate
» Morning Briefing for November 24, 2009Doug Ross @ Journal
» ACORN pwnage part II: Breitbart's BigGovt Lowers the BoomBig Government
» BREAKING: San Diego ACORN Document Dump ScandalVillainous Company
» Amateur Hour in the Oval Office Continues....Nice Deb
» O
Why do we even have states anymore?
If the states run themselves into the ground, like California, then the Federal Givernment will bail them out.
If the states are fiscally responsible, the Federal Givernment forces them to take money.
It seems to me that Federalism is dead.
The Republic is on life support, and we know what the left thinks about that.
I totally understand the rush to reassert state sovereignty! The feds want the states to be arms of the federal government! This is just frightening! Only a few weeks into BO’s reign (gag), and he’s wreaking havoc on our country!
Alohaguy, we’ll be lucky to recognize our country by the end of BO’s term!
Can he hold up the whole bill by challenging this in court?
Much easier to buy the next 6 election cycles when you control all the fed money to each and every state.
The Democrats are swiftly killing America.
Forced Socialism sounds mighty close to a dictatorship and communism.
LOOK, everyone is going to have to repay this nonsense, even people from Louisiana and South Carolina. So why wouldn’t they take the money? If they don’t, it means more for the Union states that the South will nevertheless have to repay in some way or another.
Jindal and Palin damn well be together on the GOP ticket in some way, shape or form in 2012. That’s all I have to say.
States rights under attack again!
Hey Shooter, I found you on twitter, did you get the invitation? Someone grabbed my handle as well, on there I’m zorro5663.
The problem as I see it is that the Constitution doesn’t authorize these direct federal infusions into state coffers in any case. So when the feds decided decades ago to start meddling (illegally) in state budgets, they granted themselves the authority to decide how to do it. It isn’t a question of whether it has to go through governors or legislatures; it’s a question of whether it’s constitutional to begin with.
South Carolina is where it began the first time the federal government started to impose it’s will on the southern states…..
…Looks like History is going to repeat itself. Lord knows we are going to relive the depression thanks to the Karl Marx worshippers running the US Gov’t now.
Why doesn’t SC just take the money and then spend it as it sees fit — like giving back to the taxpayer?
Just sayin’ it will creat more jobs — plus a massive influx of people moving to SC!!!!
I suppose the governors of the states could accept the money and then deposit it in a bank account. Then, they could return the money to the feds when they asked for it or just accumulate interest on it for future projects.
This insane idea is so contrary to everything the constitution was written to prevent in the first place.
The federal government has already staged a revolution against the constitution. The current government bears no resemblance to what was created in 1787.
It will be interesting to me to see if my state takes stimulus money. We may not have a choice as the democrats control the State House and Republicans control the State Senate. We have a GREAT Governor (Republican) that even most Democratic voters voted in.
We have a surplus 1.3 billion in the state’s reserves, including $370 million in rainy day funds.
Democrats want to tap into those funds (surprise!) while Republicans want specific job creation proposal BEFORE tapping into it. Republicans say reserves should be protected as the “last line of defense for Hoosier taxpayers.”
A national study released February 12, 2009 holds up Indiana as an example of how to run a state budget.
Maybe those in other states should take a look (like California) and follow this example.
The Dems in WI have been attempting to raise taxes on the hospitals. The reason is because if they do then we get some federal dollars to come in. Of course, none of those geniuses seem to realize those dollars come from taxpayers and not some magic money tree.
I wouldn’t count out Gov. Sanford, either. He has feigned disinterest in national politics recently, but that could change.
Which is breaking even..
According to this site and many others
A growing number of states are declaring sovereignty. Washington, New Hampshire, Arizona, Montana, Michigan, Missouri, Oklahoma, California, and Georgia have all introduced bills and resolutions declaring sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment. Colorado, Hawaii, Pennsylvania, Arkansas, Idaho, Indiana, Alaska, Kansas, Alabama, Nevada, Maine, and Illinois are considering such measures.
Hmm I wonder……..
The end around past this is easy, it was done here in NY by Pataki – just don’t have the various departments spend the allocated money. The feds can say you have to take it, the legislature can pass a resolution, but the agencies and departments don’t have to spend it.
I’m sure if Governor Sanford et al turn down the funds my Governor Terminator will have his hand out for extra money to bail out our stupid spending here in CA.
Sanford has a spine… unlike the scumbags that passed this spending bill. He will prevail in the courts.
Unfortunatly – it’s not just Obama and the current or recent congress.
It’s been going on for at least 100 years – the current push is just the latest.
“We the people” have happily given over any and all control to a central tyrannical government.
WI’s Dem. Gov. Doyle has the money spent already not just to try and plug a 5.7B$ deficit but adding some new spending. Even with 2.1B from the feds and 1.4B in new taxes (on smokers, hospitals, oil company profits, people making over 300T$) we will carry a 2.5B and a 2.1B deficit into 2010 and 2011 respectively. (huh?) Can anyone explain how you take 3.5B from 5.7B and still have a 4.5B deficit over the next 2 years? That’s a lot of new spending. This type of math is way above my pay grade. I’m just your lowly average middle class hard worker who asks only that my government protect me from foreign invaders and uphold the law of land. Who will protect us from our government?
Mark Sanford is not afraid of that douchebag (and not even a good douchebag…a used, leaky one) James “Original Bridge to Nowhere” Clyburn!
Be it known that any state that wishes to decline the Federal monies may forward it on to my Cayman accounts. No questions asked. $1 million increments only please.
Because a deal with the devil always comes out a losing deal. This is mafia thuggery at its worst.
I am South Carolina born and some days I think it would be worth moving back. I could vote Lindsay Grahamnesty out of office and replace him with a real conservative.
Excellent point; I hadn’t thought of that. I hope we don’t reach that point again, but we may yet.
Sure, the Governor should use the money to hire as many lawyers, legal assistants, and lobbiest as they can afford with the specific task of challenging every stupid thing the Federal government does on behalf of the people of SC.
http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/tlodocs/81R/billtext/pdf/HC00050I.pdf
*Sanford and the others need to remember the 10th amendment and not make a deal with the devil; They will invite trouble by letting the Feds get into their business.
*In fact, I would love to see just one Republican governor fully demagnetize their state of illegal aliens(through E-verify) and say to P-BO, “go ahead, send your troops in, we will be in wait for them as we have had enough of your bovine scatology”.
The Democrats wanted change, and they got it. Their next step will be to “enforce” that change by bullying, then by the point of a gun.
If the judicial system cannot be co-opted to rule to their advantage, expect the bullying tactics to overflow onto the streets of America.
They wanted change, but continuing down this path, they might just get more than they bargained for…
Revolution. It’s coming. Can you feel it?
After all, dissent IS patriotic, is it not?
In the past two years I have “progressed” from believing that rebellion against the central government in America was unthinkable to believing it will almost certainly happen in my liftime.
The excesses of the federal government now know no bounds. I don’t see a lot of other ways to rein in the central government and return it to its original constitutional role. I hope I am wrong but things do not look good at this point.
The central government has already staged a revolution against the constitution and has overthrown it!
compare sanford to the governator. america needs conservative leadership.
On February 18th, 2009 at 1:07 pm, ErinF said:
Palin, yes. Jindal, no. I love Jindal for who he is, but he is no more eligible to be President than Barack Obama.
Jindal’s parents were not U.S. citizens at the time of his birth, so he is not a “natural born citizen”, even though he was born a U.S. citizen.
NBC (Natural Born Citizen) =
1 – Born in the U.S.
2 – Father was a U.S. citizen at time of child’s birth
3 – Mother was a U.S. citizen at time of child’s birth
If we have a POTUS who can’t prove he was even born in our country, Denver Republican (so you’re the one!) why would the infusions matter?
I love Jindal for who he is, but he is no more eligible to be President than Barack Obama.
RedPill:
Ummm, what? Aside from citing your own blog, why does a natural born citizen have to be born to two U.S. citizens?
I guess RedPill would have a point but the courts have decided that nobody in America has standing to question anybody’s status as an NBC when it comes to the office of the presidency. Evidently, Juan Valdez could ride his buro up from Columbia, run for president and nobody could challenge him on his citizenship.
Of course, when have the leftists EVER felt compelled to obey court decisions they imposed upon conservatives?
No. This is actually “The Chicago Way”.
On February 18th, 2009 at 3:40 pm, vargas said:
Read the post. I’m not quoting myself; I’m quoting what was considered by the founders to be the “definitive” source of the meaning of terms: Vattel’s
I quote from Sections 212 and 215 of Book 1.
Tee hee.
Obama’s father was a British citizen. That fact is not disputed.
By the law of nature alone, which the founders of our country studied and followed, Obama was born a British citizen, and the place of birth produces no change in this particular.
I.E., Obama was born a British citizen EVEN IF HE WAS BORN IN HAWAII.
I think SC should take the money and lend it back to the Federal Gov. However, instead of a simple loan, treat it the same way the Feds did with Bailout I, only if they get an ownership stake. That way, by the end of BO’s term, SC will have a majority ownership and we can clean house.
Hey, I can dream, can’t I?
The GOP has some very good Governors, Sanford,Palin, Barber,and Jindal being among them. They are right to consider not taking the money. Way too many string attached, and NO they can’t spend the money the way they might like. This is going to be a long 4 years!!!
RedPill:
As great as it is that you’ve decided to capitalize your point, and that you’ve cited an 18th-century text, that doesn’t change the fact that you’re wrong.
I.E. The 14th Amendment to the US Constitution: All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.
Thus, if Obama was born in Hawaii, he is in fact a US citizen. Thanks for playing.
Sorry, vargas, it is you who are wrong.
There is a difference between “citizen” and “Natural Born Citizen”, as clearly evidenced by Article II, Section 1 of the United States Constitution:
Notice that “or“?
“Natural born Citizen” and “Citizen” are not the same thing.
The 14th Amendment defines who is a citizen, not who is a natural born citizen.
It is possible to be born a citizen, (by being born in the U.S.) and still not be a natural born citizen (because one or both of the parents are not citizens). The word “natural” in “natural born citizen” refers to “natural law”, and the natural law definition of a citizen remains:
You would be correct if the 14th Amendment said:
But that is neither what it says, nor what the author of the 14th Amendment intended.
Yes, there is a difference. But read what you said, and so strongly capitalized:
So, you were not talking about natural born citizen in your post. Try to keep your terms straight if you’re going to be so insistent.
Obama admits (on the fight the smears page) that he was born a British citizen.
At best, he was a dual citizen (British and USA), but he was born a “natural born citizen” of Great Britain, not a “natural born citizen” of the United States.