… or, at least, does so to the extent that a mere Attorney General’s opinion can do. Basically, Henry says the Clyburn amendment can’t bypass Gov. Sanford, on account of the 10th amendment.
There also seems to be some separation of powers stuff going on. Here’s a copy of Henry’s letter, which says “the General Assembly itself may not coerce the executive branch to act in accordance with the legislative will.
James Clyburn, meanwhile, is ticked:
ECONOMIC RECOVERY DEBATE: CLYBURN STATEMENT ON McMASTER OPINION
WASHINGTON, DC—House Majority Whip James E. Clyburn today responded to an opinion released by South Carolina Attorney General Henry McMaster about the interpretation of the so-called “Clyburn workaround amendment,” Section 1607 in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.“Today the State of South Carolina added another chapter in its ongoing effort to maintain a standard of minimally adequate education. For over 100 years, the last 20 in state courts, leaders in our state have fought to uphold that standard. Over the last several weeks and without even going to court—the proper venue to determine constitutionality of federal laws—Attorney General McMaster, Governor Sanford and Senator Graham have gone out of their way to ensure that South Carolina continues its long history of providing a minimally adequate education.
“Rather than renewing the age old debate over States’ Rights and the Tenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution our leadership should be seeking common ground to provide our schools the funds they need to retain teachers and maintain healthy, safe buildings in which our students can learn.
“What makes ‘state stabilization’ funding different from the funding Governor Sanford has authorized to rebuild highways or increase unemployment checks? Why aren’t Attorney General McMaster and Senator Graham calling on Governor Sanford to use the very same pen to accept the state stabilization money—which our taxpayers are providing—to retain teachers and give our state’s schools the opportunity to move beyond their minimally adequate legacy?”
-30-
If you ask me, there’s a lot more going on here than some sort of Democrat-vs.-Republican tug of wills over “minimally adequate” schools. But then, Rep. Clyburn didn’t ask me.
Neither, obviously, did the governor. So what do we do now? I don’t know. Maybe y’all have some ideas.
Related Posts
If the stuttering, mumbling, “ah, ah, ah” Clyburn is happy, I’m sad and if the stuttering, mumbling, “ah, ah, ah” Clyburn is sad, I’m happy.
I’m happy today. I’ll be happier at close of business on Friday when Sanford’s denial of this welfare handout is final. Maybe Clyburn will get so upset that he’ll resign and go back to his hole.
I am surprised that more people are not standing up to the brazen, illegal power grab of Democrats, from King Barack and Princess Pelosi, to Barney Frank, Chris Dodd and Chuckie Schumer.
Moderate Democrats are in shock to realize that this cabal has already reached way beyond anything by their pet demon, Richard Nixon.
At the grass roots level, a lot of people I know are just not going to work as hard, and not going to pay higher taxes to feed the Welfare Core of the Democratic Party. Let them print worthless currency and bring on inflation. The most skilled workers can raise their fees and keep pace with it. The lower wage workers will be hurt the most by this socialist attack on our economy.
Clyburn needs to hush for a second and think about what he is saying. One of the mandated duties of the A.G. is to give legal opinions to public officials at their request.
Here the A.G. is not acting as an advocate but as a legal analyst. He says that any final decision must be made by the courts, but, in his opinion it is likely that if the G.A. appropriates the money the Court will compel the executive to acquire and expend it.
This is naught but an A.G.’s opinion but I would think that those opposing the Governor’s position in this matter should be given heart rather than wailing.
My prediction: The G.A. passes a concurrent resolution by close of business Friday. This satisfies the 45 day requirement. They continue with a budget which includes the money. The Governor sticks by his guns. At some point (and I’m not sure exactly when, may have to wait until budget becomes law has had the money vetoed and is overridden) G.A. files a lawsuit. Supremes agree to hear it quickly in their original jurisdiction and find for the G.A. (not because the Gov is wrong but because the Supremes often think like legislators) and order the Gov to request the money which has been held by Feds. Gov reluctantly obeys court order and money is spent in accordance with Appropriations Act.