Mark Sanford

[KpAtch3s]

The news that's surrounding him brought some light onto something I hadn't heard about in the news. Sanford was fighting with the Obama administration over the stimulus and how it should be spent within his state.

South Carolina and the Stimulus - The Caucus Blog - NYTimes.com

Lawmakers Can Defy Governors to Get the Stimulus Money - The Caucus Blog - NYTimes.com

The stimulus money can only be spent in certain area's and requires the states to give unemployment to even part time employees. He wanted to spend the money to pay off the states debt, but was denied and then forced by courts as allowable by the stimulus package to take the money.

Signed into law on Tuesday by President Obama, the $787 billion economic package includes language that allows state lawmakers to go around their governors to obtain some of the funds.

This is something that I have serious problems with. That is not within the powers of the courts. Why is that being allowed to happen?!

 

[Margene]

The news that's surrounding him brought some light onto something I hadn't heard about in the news. Sanford was fighting with the Obama administration over the stimulus and how it should be spent within his state.

South Carolina and the Stimulus - The Caucus Blog - NYTimes.com

Lawmakers Can Defy Governors to Get the Stimulus Money - The Caucus Blog - NYTimes.com

The stimulus money can only be spent in certain area's and requires the states to give unemployment to even part time employees. He wanted to spend the money to pay off the states debt, but was denied and then forced by courts as allowable by the stimulus package to take the money.



This is something that I have serious problems with. That is not within the powers of the courts. Why is that being allowed to happen?!

If a state takes federal money, they are obligated to use it as the feds intended. They cannot take federal education dollars and then use it on roads. Same principle.

 

[KpAtch3s]

If a state takes federal money, they are obligated to use it as the feds intended. They cannot take federal education dollars and then use it on roads. Same principle.

Ah, but thing is he refused the money and then was forced by the courts to take it.

 

[Margene]

Ah, but thing is he refused the money and then was forced by the courts to take it.

I'm sorry, I cannot find in either of your links that the courts can make them take it. I see that lawmakers, the legislature, can force the governor to take it. Since a governor is not a dictator, I agree they can override him.

 

[Staci]

A former three-term congressman, Sanford most recently snared headlines for his unsuccessful fight to turn aside federal stimulus cash for his state's schools. His vocal battle against the Obama administration — and libertarian, small-government leanings — won praise from conservative pundits. Ultimately, a state court order required him to take the money.

 

[Margene]

A former three-term congressman, Sanford most recently snared headlines for his unsuccessful fight to turn aside federal stimulus cash for his state's schools. His vocal battle against the Obama administration — and libertarian, small-government leanings — won praise from conservative pundits. Ultimately, a state court order required him to take the money.

Was that in the links? How was the matter brought before court? On who's behalf?

 

[Staci]

Gov. Sanford: Why We Don't Want 'Stimulus' - WSJ.com

 

[Staci]

Sanford gives in on stimulus, will seek funds for S.C. | McClatchy

 

[Staci]

PRESS RELEASE: Governor Sanford Issues Statement on Supreme Court Verdict

 

[Margene]

Gov. Sanford: Why We Don't Want 'Stimulus' - WSJ.com

I don't mean to be difficult, but there is no mention of a court in that link. I understand why he didn't want to use the money as intended, but if a state takes federal money, it must be used as intended, unless there are rules built into the funding to circumvent. Paying down debt was not one of those rules.

 

[Margene]

Now I know which court ruled:


South Carolina governor trumped, must take stimulus money - CNN.com

Students and education officials in South Carolina filed lawsuits demanding that the governor take the money. Sanford tried to have those suits merged and heard in federal court.
On Monday, however, a federal judge rejected that effort, and said that the South Carolina Supreme Court must decide what to do.
In its ruling, the state's highest court said the legislature, not Sanford, has the power to decide whether to accept the federal stimulus money.

​

The balance of powers at work.

 

[Staci]

I don't mean to be difficult, but there is no mention of a court in that link. I understand why he didn't want to use the money as intended, but if a state takes federal money, it must be used as intended, unless there are rules built into the funding to circumvent. Paying down debt was not one of those rules.

sorry i actually posted the link from SC website about the supreme court case

 

[Alien Allen]

Interesting tit for tat going on here. Interesting in that in Michigan the governor is dictating how and where the money is going. I guess it depends on the legislature agreeing to what the gov. wants.

This is more hard handed bribery bullshit by the feds.

 

[ssl]

Ha, I did not follow up on this story. I should look into it a little bit more.

When I first heard of the refusal (and why it was made)... I was like:

a) take the money.
b) use the money how you want, but indirectly:

by accepting the money - you can divert some other monies from the accounts that the fed's money goes into, and use that money where you see fit.

Problem solved for all parties.

Except the monies he uses for the purposes he wants to would not be the amount necessary, it still would be beneficial to all involved.

 

[KpAtch3s]

Now I know which court ruled:


South Carolina governor trumped, must take stimulus money - CNN.com

Students and education officials in South Carolina filed lawsuits demanding that the governor take the money. Sanford tried to have those suits merged and heard in federal court.
On Monday, however, a federal judge rejected that effort, and said that the South Carolina Supreme Court must decide what to do.
In its ruling, the state's highest court said the legislature, not Sanford, has the power to decide whether to accept the federal stimulus money.

​

The balance of powers at work.

That isn't balance of power, that is forced wasteful spending. Essentially the courts forced the state to take the money.

 

[Margene]

That isn't balance of power, that is forced wasteful spending. Essentially the courts forced the state to take the money.

Of course that is the balance of powers. The governor should not be allowed to unilaterally decline the stimulus money. He is not a king or dictator.

 

[ssl]

but just veto'ing his ability, in essence, is literally removing his say in anything.

do you realize that the legislative body is the most powerful branch of this governmental blueprint?

 

[Meirionnydd]

but just veto'ing his ability, in essence, is literally removing his say in anything.

do you realize that the legislative body is the most powerful branch of this governmental blueprint?

I thought the executive was...?

 

[Margene]

but just veto'ing his ability, in essence, is literally removing his say in anything.

do you realize that the legislative body is the most powerful branch of this governmental blueprint?

If this was in response to me:

No, I don't believe the legislative branch is the most powerful branch. The reason, the legislature is made up of many people who must act together in order to override (not veto) the governor or president. How often does that happen?

The governor or president on the other hand, is one person and with a single stroke can wipe out the will of the legislature and they then are powerless, unless there are 2/3 majority to do anything about it. I would say the executive has much more power. Bush vetoed stem cell research and SCHIP. That was the last word until they passed those bills again this year and Obama signed them.

 

[Dakota Jim]

Was that in the links? How was the matter brought before court? On who's behalf?

The legislature most likely petitioned the courts to issue a order to comply with the legislature. I wasn't "tried" in the courts as I read it.