When I read the lead story in today’s paper, I was struck by the headline, “Sanford: Stimulus suit about power, not money.”
What struck me was that that was exactly what Glenn McConnell said about the dispute, that it was all about power.
Usually, when McConnell and Sanford square off on gubernatorial power, I’m on the governor’s side. I’m speaking of his efforts to gain for the chief executive the actual executive powers that the other 49 governors in the nation wield, so that the governor’s office has a chance to be both effective and accountable. McConnell has been a champion of those resisting that since at least the Campbell administration. And of all those who resist it, he probably has the clearest notion why: He is jealous of senatorial power.
But the governor’s arguments in this case are patently ridiculous. Even if we got everything that he and I want in the way of restructuring, the legislature would still be (and should be) the entity that appropriates money, and it would still have the power to override gubernatorial vetoes with a two-thirds majority.
The line-item veto is one area where the governor has all the power he needs (more than the president of the U.S., for instance). And to have his way, all he has to do is make a sufficiently reasonable argument that a third of lawmakers go along with him. That’s really not an onerous provision for the governor — unless he’s Mark Sanford, and he has thrown away every opportunity he might have had to get as many as a third of lawmakers to listen to him.
Related Posts
“Patently ridiculous” seems overly strong. This particular situation is unlike anything the state has ever faced.
The federal government has offered money to the state, but the mechanism they drafted to allow the money to be accepted is vague and poorly written. Is the governor the only state official that can accept the funds? If s/he doesn’t, can the state legislature override that decision? Is Congress even allowed to draft such a provision, or is the provision itself an unconstitutional imposition of federal interference under the 10th amendment?
Legal scholars – including from the Congressional Research Service, the Obama administration and law professors from Yale – have debated over the proper interpretation of the provision.
But to you, his argument is “patently absurd.” Good to know you have a better handle on the intricacies of the interplay between federal and state issues than the above.
Incidentally, both the Obama administration and Sen. Graham seem to think that only the governor can request the funds. Didn’t you recently say that you agree with anything they agree on? I guess they’re “patently ridiculous.”
Brad,
If the legislature can fund state run golf courses, should there ever be any case where they cut funding for education?
You’ve been played.
Daniel, what you’re missing — and what I’m saying is absurd — is the governor’s assertion that by overriding his veto, the Legislature has somehow seized power that should by rights belong to the executive. That’s ridiculous. There are all sorts of power that SHOULD belong to the executive and does not, and lawmakers are wrong not to grant those powers. But a supermajority of the Legislature does and SHOULD have the ability to override a veto.
This governor has all sorts of legitimate gripes he could level at this Legislature. But the gripe that the legislative branch is somehow overreaching its proper power in this case is completely ridiculous.
Brad – you’re right that I don’t quite follow that. It seems (to me) that you’re conflating two issues, which results in something that sounds absurd.
According to Gov. Sanford, the state appropriations act, as passed by the General Assembly, a) is federally unconstitutional and b) violates the separation of powers as embodied in the state constitution.
For those two reasons (and I’m obviously simplifying to some degree), he vetoed the act. The legislature overrode that veto. He has now filed suit to prevent the enforcement of that act, due to the above-mentioned reasons.
He’s not challenging the fact that the legislature overrode the veto; he’s challenging the entire act.
It’s no different than the bobtailing suits we’ve seen so often in recent years. The General Assembly passes a bob-tailed bill. The governor vetoes it (or parts of it). The General Assembly overrides his veto. The act is then challenged in court, and is ruled unconstitutional. What’s going on here is the same exact process. When the General Assembly overrides a veto, the bill becomes an act. The only way to challenge an act is in court.
You may disagree with the governor about the 10th amendment implications of the stimulus act provisions allowing state legislatures to accept the funds; and you may disagree on whether there’s a separation-of-powers issue with regard to whether the General Assembly can force the governor to request the funds.
But I don’t think it’s fair to twist the arguments around to make it look like Gov. Sanford is arguing something that he’s not, in order to proclaim it absurd. His arguments are actually quite sophisticated and, frankly, important with respect to both federal and state constitutional questions.
The resolution of this suit will be interesting, and will likely have a longstanding impact on the executive-legislative balance of power in the state. Although it’s hard to imagine relations being much more strained than they are now!
Doug’s right about money– the state legislature could and should have been much better in the appropriations, and someone needs to stand up to them. Unfortunately, Gov. Sanford, while making strong statements, has done no leading and no work to make the legislature to change.
Regarding the power argument, Daniel’s right, but Brad’s right, too. Neither the ARRA nor the State Constitution gives the Governor the decision-making and money-controlling powers that he is claiming.
The Governor’s lawsuit claims that the SFSF section of the ARRA gives him “exclusive authority” and “sole discretion” regarding the State’s application for the education funds.
The lawsuit refers to Sec. 14005(a), which says, “The Governor of a State desiring to receive an allocation under section 14001 shall submit an application at such time, in such manner, and containing such information as the Secretary may reasonably require.”
The authority to decide whether or not a State desires to receive an allocation is not granted to the Governor by that statement. By the last antecedent rule, it is the State that decides whether or not to desire the funds. If the State desires the funds, then the federal law requires (forces) the Governor to submit an application.
Our state has decided that we desire the funds. Our state has done so by following the procedures of our state constitution. The legislature passed a bill, the governor vetoed it, and the veto was overridden. Our state’s desire for the funds is now a fact of law.
The Governor must now, by state and federal law, submit an application. This is not an onerous command, and it is one that the Governor must faithfully execute. Submitting an application, in the context here, merely means placing the application in an envelope, affixing proper federal postage, and putting the envelope into the USPS.
See, the General Assembly knows how lazy Gov. Sanford is, and that’s why they required Jim Rex to prepare the application. As you can see in Sanford’s lawsuit, the relevant section of SC’s appropriation law, Part III, Section 1 of General Appropriations Law, states:
“The State Superintendent of Education shall take all action necessary and provide any information needed to assist the Governor in fulfilling his obligation to apply for State Fiscal Stabilization funds pursuant to this Section.”
If Govenor Sanford chooses to not faithfully execute the law, then he must be impeached. If it’s all about power, the legislature truly has the final say.
Sorry about all the hypertext — I neglected the after “lawsuit.” I wish there was a preview. And, Brad, in facebook, a person can fix such things in his own comment by himself. I apologize again.
Daniel, most of the debate before was about 1607(a) and 1607(b). Importantly, then, the Governor had to “certify,” which sounds like a big deal, and the legislature could do so instead merely by a concurrent resolution. In the end, Gov. Sanford did certify (and the legislature passed a concurrent resolution too). Here, we are talking about SC’s desire for the education allocation, and that desire has been expressed as something more than just a legislature’s concurrent resolution. It’s a law: the legislature overrode the Governor’s veto.
But the state doesn’t even NEED any of the extra federal pork money, in order to keep the same spending as in 2007, which was 40% above 2003.
Lee, that ship has sailed. If you want to convince the legislature that they should rearrange their priorities, count me in. I’m with you all the way. Let’s get to work. Unfortunately, not just 1/2, but 2/3 of the legislature think that the budget that they passed is what their constituents want. The federal money has been made available, and the state legislators WANT it. The budget is law.
All, Cindi Ross Scoppe’s column today is fantastic!!
http://www.thestate.com/scoppe/story/799259.html
“Scoppe: A closer look at Sanford v. McMaster”
Michael,
You’re lucky that you have the ability to take poorly drafted statutes and interpret their underlying meaning and import with such clarity. The true meaning of these sections have led to debate and uncertainty among even noted constitutional scholars who do such things for a living.
I’m sure that Gov. Sanford’s suit will be dismissed by the district court with a brief, one page summary questioning how he could have possibly misinterpreted such a simple, straightforward requirement in federal law.
Thanks for clearing it all up!
[/sarcasm]
Mrs. Scoppe’s columns are fantasies.
She doesn’t know much about state spending, nothing about economics, and nothing about business, except what politicians and lobbyists tell her.
The fact that 1/4 or 1/2 or 2/3 of the legislature would vote to spend money they don’t have, on things the state does not NEED, and borrow money they cannot pay back, only means that those legislators are derelict and need to be replaced.
Their responsibility is to only spend money on what is legal and necessary, not every wild-eyed thing a few constituents here and there want.
The federal government has no authority to tell state governments what legislation to pass. The federal government has no authority to tell a governor what legislation to sign, either.