Sandford’s straight up deception to this states highest court and backassward logic of ‘state’s rights’ arguments only getting a fair hearing in federal court is awesome. Some body get that guy and “I’m a Jackass” T-shirt on the double.

They just get in the way of his rants. He could care less.

He is just a (low) paid political pimp.

Now, if you want to parse out specific areas where you think Sanford is more limited than most, then you start getting into the whole perspective thing. It all depends on what you think is more important regarding limitations.

For veto authority, he has as much power as any governor, apparently, scoring a five (with only a handful scoring below). Of course, for whatever reason, he seems to be unable to sustain those vetoes very well. That’s got nothing to do with being constitutionally limited, though.

For control over the budget, he ranks at the bottom, with Texas and SD, scoring a two. But only Nebraska and NY score a four, and only Maryland and WV score a five. The rest sit at three, which really doesn’t seem to be that much better. Other areas are a mixed bag.

So, overall, Sanford is really just below average on this scale for being limited.

How is SC different? For starters, it’s the only state with a legislatively-dominated “budget and control board,” which strips the vast majority of executive functions away from the chief executive.

We are the ONLY state in the country that has one, and you can obviously see how well that’s working out for us.

Oh and Tim, don’t be such a whiny bitch. We’re sure you Obamunnists will find some way to get every red cent of this money.

For the record, we continue to believe that the “ungov” missed a GOLDEN opportunity here to simply reject the whole pot … or in lieu of that adopt a “reform or tax cut” policy for the money.

Again … debt repayment? Yawn …

-FITS

As for the governor’s powers under the SC Constitution, it is what it is. A more capable governor might have successfully pushed for constitutional changes to strengthen the office. A more capable politician might have achieved something – anything – despite his constitutional weakness. Your governor has done neither.

In fact, Sanford has taken a laudable and much needed goal – restructuring state government and creating more executive authority – and set that cause back by several years. Every governor since Campbell has been able achieve at least a nominal expansion of executive power. By choosing to browbeat the legislature from the day of his inauguration and proving himself ineffectual with the power he does have, Mark Sanford has provided opponents of restructuring with an argument that will resound for years: what if we have another governor like Mark Sanford?

Actually, that’s how it’s supposed to be, in an effective system of checks and balances. None of the three branches should have absolute “power” over either of the others. I’m not sure how SC is different from other states in this regard.

“Lawmakers are in control, people, which they capably demonstrate each year by sending Sanford’s vetoes back to him faster than a Shaquille O’Neal rejection.”

This is more a testament, perhaps, to Sanford being out of step/disliked by the GA, rather than there being any inappropriate control issue. All governors have veto authority, and all legislatures have the ability to override. The suggestion that it happens more frequently with Sanford just indicates, to me, that he simply likes to give the impression he’s bucking the “system.” I’d wager many governors would veto more legislation they don’t like, except they make a more concerted effort to determine if the squeeze is worth the juice. If Sanford wants to waste time by vetoing stuff he knows the GA will override, then it seems he’s just looking for attention.

Of course, there’s nothing wrong with taking a political stand. That’s what politicians should do. But the fact that Sanford gets overridden so often is not an indication his office is weaker, constitutionally, than those in other states. It may be (although I haven’t seen the proof), but the overrides tell me he’s either less effective at working with his GA than most other governors, or simply more willing than other governors to use vetoes he knows won’t hold.

As for looking to the feds to settle a state dispute, that seems contrary to what a true conservative would do. Shopping for a friendly judicial venue seems more out of the liberal playbook.

you’re always raising hell about how the MSM doesn’t do its job, so it’s left to folks like you (get it?) to do it for them. seems you’re asleep at the switch on this one. liberaltarian and i want to know: how much public money has governor santurd spent so far? and if it’s not public money, who’s footing the bill? surely you agree that these are legitimate questions. we’re all waiting for the answers.

It was a post-Reconstruction effort to preserve the status quo (think Jim Crow) and prevent a reformist governor from coming in and changing too much. See the below article. Interesting that Riley and Hodges both agree with Sanford on this point and the need to reform.

http://www.charlestonbusiness.com/news/26191-state-senator-says-s-c-constitution-lsquo-born-in-sin-rsquo