Comments on: ‘Stimulus’ Legislation Allows State Legislatures to Override Governors Who Refuse Bailout, Accept Funds Anyway

By: Lammo

Lammo — Fri, 13 Feb 2009 18:54:52 +0000

about McCain-Feingold. It is bad strategy (and tactics) to rely on the Court of Final Error to do the right thing, even if we did manage to fill it with Roberts/Alito/Scalia/Thomas clones.

By: Aaron Gardner

Aaron Gardner — Fri, 13 Feb 2009 18:09:19 +0000

Maybe you could have commented on that diary and we could have a discussion about improvement on the concept. But don’t try and throw that in my face as some sort of contradiction…it’s not.

I thought about the things you brought up but figured that since all of us know about those things that any actual bill would have to be written to protect against the effects of EO 13202.

Lastly you sy the democrats control everything….well last I checked we still had a slim majorit on the court when it really matters. The odds are enough in our favor that it would be defeatism in it’s worst form to not oppose it and take it to the SCOTUS on grounds of Constitutionality.

By: Scope

Scope — Fri, 13 Feb 2009 17:50:27 +0000

You wrote a diary entitled “My bipartisan Economic Plan.” You suggested that your recommended 40% infrastructure spending plan should go to the state’s legislatures to choose who to give the contracts to based on bids. You then say that it should have a final sign off from the Governor. My immediate thought was that you give state legislatures more credit for bipartisanship and honesty then they deserve. With this diary we see that Governors have “no” last say. The South Carolina example is a good one, and I’m sure there are many more.

Have you also read the diary by Kenny Solomon where he points out that Obama overrode Bush’s executive order 13202 which now says that all of the infrastructure projects coming out of this disaster will have to be given to “Union” companies and workers?

And, as to your suggestion to bring this before the Supremes as unconstitutional, just how far do you think that would go considering that the Democrats now have complete control?

By: The_Gadfly

The_Gadfly — Fri, 13 Feb 2009 17:45:54 +0000

but if anybody can figure out a way to certify me as the plaintiff, I’ll be more than happy to oblige in that roll. Same thing applies with moving the census project to directly reporting to Rahm.

By: Aaron Gardner

Aaron Gardner — Fri, 13 Feb 2009 15:46:06 +0000

I suppose I should just keep my opinion too myself.

/screw that

Look Jeff I may not be able to write the frickin brief but there are people who read RedState that could and I don’t mind expressing that they would have my support as a grassroots conservative to get public support up for their cause, our cause.

You want to dial it back a bit, we are on the same side. We should elevate these issues, that’s why you wrote the article right?

By: Jeff Emanuel

Jeff Emanuel — Fri, 13 Feb 2009 15:41:51 +0000

By: Aaron Gardner

Aaron Gardner — Fri, 13 Feb 2009 15:39:14 +0000

When FDR brought his socialist New Deal a lot of it was challenged on Constitutional grounds, and rightly struck down. We must point out the violations and prepare our cases because this is going to pass and we must fight it now via the courts on its Constitutionality.

By: Oz

Oz — Fri, 13 Feb 2009 15:35:24 +0000

I can’t see how this would get past the Supreme Court.

By: Jeff Emanuel

Jeff Emanuel — Fri, 13 Feb 2009 15:30:39 +0000

…when it’s Democrats who are in power?

By: mikefisk

mikefisk — Fri, 13 Feb 2009 15:30:14 +0000

…you ever think “Constitutional” ever stopped them?

By: daves_not_here

daves_not_here — Fri, 13 Feb 2009 15:25:15 +0000

This seems like blatant undermining of the state executive authority and responsibility. Can it even be constitutionally acceptable for the federal government to put a back door option like this into a law?