A State SC Ruling. What do you all think? Is this the intent of the courts?

[rushmc 23]

SC Court Orders Sanford to Request Stimulus

Thursday, June 4, 2009 6:10 PM


COLUMBIA, S.C. -- South Carolina's Supreme Court ordered Gov. Mark Sanford on Thursday to request $700 million in federal stimulus money aimed primarily at struggling schools, ending months of wrangling with legislators who accused him of playing politics with people's lives.


The nation's most vocal anti-bailout governor had refused to take the money designated for the state over the next two years, facing down protesters and legislators who passed a budget requiring him to. While other Republican governors had taken issue with requesting money from the $787 billion federal stimulus package, Sanford was the first to defend in court his desire to reject the money.


But he said Thursday he will not appeal the Supreme Court ruling and plans to sign paperwork to request the money Monday.


Educators quickly hailed the court decision. They had predicted hundreds of teachers would lose jobs and colleges would see steep tuition increases without the money, though sharp budget cuts will still take a toll.


"Finally. It took way too long. It was so unnecessary and took so long to do what 49 other states figured out how to do a long time ago, but finally is better than not at all. It will allow districts to immediately begin to reconstitute programs and fill positions they didn't think they could fill," state Education Superintendent Jim Rex said.


The stimulus fight has raised the national profile of Sanford, the chairman of the Republican Governors Association, and provoked talk of a 2012 GOP presidential bid.


The former congressman objected to the stimulus money on several levels that were consistent with his small government, anti-spending stances. He claims it will devalue the dollar and increase debt. When fellow Republicans who control the Legislature pushed for the cash, Sanford said they were overstepping their reach into his executive powers.


The unanimous court ruling said the governor had no say in the matter.


"At this stage in the process, the Governor certainly has no discretion to make a contradictory decision on behalf of the State," the ruling said. "He has no discretion concerning the appropriation of funds."


Sanford on Thursday lamented what he said was a decision that underscores how the little power governors of the state have is ceded to the Legislature.


"In South Carolina, in many ways, we don't have three branches of government. We have only one," he said. "If you put too much power in one place, not many good things happen."


The Supreme Court's ruling came a day after arguments in two lawsuits filed by students and school administrators. Sanford had tried to get those cases merged in federal court with his lawsuit against the state, which he filed moments after legislators overrode his budget veto. But he lost that battle Monday when a federal judge refused to take those cases.


Sanford had refused to request the $700 million _ the portion of the $2.8 billion bound for the state that he says he controls _ unless legislators agreed to offset state debt by an equal amount. The White House twice rejected that idea, noting the money must be used to help education and avoid job losses.


South Carolina, which had the nation's third-highest jobless rate in April _ hitting a state record high of 11.5 percent _ cut more than $1 billion from its $7 billion spending plan for 2008-09 as tax revenues slumped in the recession.


Sanford's refusal has raised the ire of U.S. Rep. Jim Clyburn, the No. 3 House Democrat, who accused the governor of being a foe of public education. Amid budget cuts and uncertainty over the federal money, districts had told hundreds of teachers they don't have a job in the upcoming school year.


State education officials estimated schools would eliminate 2,600 education jobs, including 1,500 teachers, without the stimulus money.


Clyburn, D-S.C., inserted an amendment in the federal law with Sanford's anti-bailout stance in mind, saying legislators could go around a governor's refusal. But the legality of that was later questioned.


But on Monday, U.S. District Judge Joseph Anderson cited Clyburn's amendment in saying it was clear Congress intended to allow legislators to get around governors who didn't want the money.


© 2009 Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[lawrocket 3]

I've gotta read the opinion to comment. I do have issues with this, based upon only what I read here, namely: "why are they suing the governor to request it if they don't need the governor to request it?"

Still, I have grave concerns with a unanimous decision. The governor's job is to execute the will of the legislature. That the governor has "no discretion" is "magic words" to a lawyer.
It means that the governor is acting CONTRARY to the law. We saw this happen with the Illinois Sec of State refusing to perform a ministerial duty with Obama's successor.

Just because he thinks it is wrong or unwise, the governor has zero business operating outside of the law.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[TheAnvil 0]

Senator Clyburn's amendment achieved its intended purpose. Bravo for the fight, Governor Sanford. I emailed him and actually got a response back from his Chief of Staff a few months ago. Nice fellow.

The Republican legislature can answer to their voters in the next election. Then again, the alternative would undoubtedly be far worse.

[barf]

Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!

[billeisele 130]

to really understand this you would have to go back and read a couple months of info, and understand the state politics

this more about an ongoing power struggle than the money

Give one city to the thugs so they can all live together. I vote for Chicago where they have strict gun laws.

[futuredivot 0]

Even though I agree with Gov Sanford that the money digs a hole that we don't want to be in, the legal fact is that in SC the Governor doesn't have that much power. As a point of law, he was in the wrong. Wrong for the right reasons, but still wrong.
As the spouse of a teacher, I'm more curious why the income from The South Carolina Education Lottery doesn't seem to be used to make any meaningful impact on education.

You are only as strong as the prey you devour

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Even though I agree with Gov Sanford that the money digs a hole that we don't want to be in, the legal fact is that in SC the Governor doesn't have that much power. As a point of law, he was in the wrong. Wrong for the right reasons, but still wrong.
As the spouse of a teacher, I'm more curious why the income from The South Carolina Education Lottery doesn't seem to be used to make any meaningful impact on education.

Hmm, I may need to look and see what the constitution of this state looks like

Thanks

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billeisele 130]

it is the governors responsibility to carry out the spending plan that is approved, they included the stimulus money in the budget

the governor thought that it was his option on whether to apply for the money or not, he felt that they did not have the authority to approve spending if the money did not exist

the court said, budget was approved, go make the application

one must dig deeper to understand why there was conflict, it is simple politics - not what is right or wrong

democrats won, a few jobs are temporarily saved, wasteful spending can be ignored a little longer

republicans lost, state taxpayers lost they just don't know it yet

Give one city to the thugs so they can all live together. I vote for Chicago where they have strict gun laws.