Dogs And Their (Taxpayer) Bones
S.C. Senate President Glenn McConnell has requested an opinion from Attorney General Henry McMaster that would define whether or not lawmakers can override Gov. Mark Sanford and use $700 million in federal bailout money to “balance” the state’s $21 billion budget.
Senate Finance Chairman Hugh Leatherman has proposed doing just that, although it’s legally murky as to whether he’s within his rights in taking advantage of the so-called “Clyburn Amendment,” a federal provision that allows state legislatures to override governors who reject a portion of the bailout boondoggle.
In a rare moment of concern of the taxpayer, U.S. Sen. Lindsey Graham has questioned whether or not the “Clyburn Amendment” is legal under the 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
McMaster’s decision will no doubt be watched very closely as voters begin to take their measure of the man who wants to replace Sanford in the governor’s office.
If McMaster rules that lawmakers have the right to void Sanford’s decision and take the money, then fiscal conservatives will no doubt view him as a tool of the establishment, doing McConnell’s bidding despite all the pretenses of following the law.
If McMaster goes the other way, however, he would likely endear himself to the army of Sanford supporters who are currently less-than-enthralled with their choices for governor.
So … What (Will) Henry Do?
Is he just another dog protecting the status quo’s bone? Or will he move to position himself for 2010 by siding with Sanford?
Loading ...
Comments
By anon on March 24th, 2009 at 11:23 am
Doesn’t the Atty General have the duty to publish an opinion that is based on the law not political aspirations?
No matter the outcome his opinion must be based on precedent and published opinions or he can forget political goals.
By Joey Jo Jo Jr. Shabadoo on March 24th, 2009 at 12:15 pm
From a South Carolina perspective, I don’t know why it’s considered “conservative” to reject the money. You do realize this is money that will be paid back (theoretically) by the ENTIRE United States, and not just the citizens of South Carolina? So to reject this money is to basically reject funds roughly 99% of which will be paid back by non-South Carolinians. While I would certainly agree the much of the federal spending is not conservative from a national perspective, unfortunately that bridge has been crossed and so it’s time for Sanford to actually think about conserving something for South Carolina (other than a footnote as the home state to a failed 2012 presidential nominee).
By Cooter Brown on March 25th, 2009 at 6:06 am
“In a rare moment of concern of the taxpayer, U.S. Sen. Lindsey Graham has questioned whether or not the “Clyburn Amendment” is legal under the 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.”
Is dere annie thing dat sissy does up in Warshingtun dat isn’t a breakin’ da 10th ammendment– sissy or enie of ‘em??? Why worrie ’bout da law of da land now???
By liz on March 25th, 2009 at 8:43 am
The people of South Carolina WILL pay the money back whether out Marky Mark takes it or not. We are members of the United States of America. The burden for repayment will be shared.
So you move to Virginia… think you are gonna get a tax break because your Governor opted you out of the stimulus?
THINK AGAIN
Sanford is dead wrong on this one (too).
By Silence Dogood on March 25th, 2009 at 6:38 pm
Yeah, Lindsey, you tell’em, the 10th Amendment reserves power to the states not given to the feds or prohibited from the states by the Constitution. So according to Graham, the power of MAKING LAWS regarding the state’s budget by the STATE legislature rather than Gov. violates the 10th Amendment how…?
I forgot you have to read the 10th Amendment through politically convenient lenses to get the result you want. Thanks Senator!
Trackbacks