Tuesday, March 17, 2009

Palin's Pen Mightier Than Obama's Pen: The Sequel

Back in February, I had posted Who's pen will be mightier

The gist of the topic was; there is a constitutional question on the stimulus bill by-passing the executive authority of the governor when it comes to making a budget.

And for that, I questioned the constitutionality of the stimulus bill and I asked, is Palin's pen mightier than Obama's. I think the answer is yes.

In today's McClatchy on-line edition, the headline reads: Can states override govs on stimulus? Report casts doubts

What first hit me about the article is; Palin is missing from the article.. She has been one of the governors who has been very vocal about it.

James Rosen writes:

Such questions could imperil stimulus funds for South Carolina and Texas, whose governors have said that they'd reject some of their states' share of the money.

No mention of Alaska.. Rosen continues...

The report by the Congressional Research Service, the nonpartisan research arm of Congress, casts doubt on a key provision of the $787 billion stimulus bill that President Barack Obama signed into law last month, according to people familiar with the report, who couldn't be named because they weren't authorized to discuss it publicly.

The clause, aimed at bypassing governors who oppose using deficit spending to jolt the economy, authorizes a state's legislature to apply for the stimulus funds if its governor fails to do so within 45 days of the stimulus measure's Feb. 17 enactment — by April 3.

That provision could be challenged over whether it blurs the constitutional separation of powers between executive and legislative branches of state government.

I did a quick google search and it looks like both Texas and South Carolina have a provision in their laws/constitution for the governor to use the line-item veto.

In Alaska, as I said before, the governor has the power to use the line-item veto.

It would be an interesting scenario for the governors to challenge the law when it comes to unfunded mandates attached to funds that the legislators may want.

No comments: