[bigbob]

Rush mentioned this in passing, so I dug it out and formatted it. Really makes one wonder why our fearless leaders thought such a provision needed to be included. Are they afraid some Governor might actually have the guts to say "No, thanks"....Gov. Palin, for instance? Not that it matters, they know the pork-loving state legislatures will happily come to the trough even if the Gov. doesn't.

I'd respect any Gov. who refuses to comply with (a), on the basis that they know it will produce neither jobs nor economic growth.

[goodnesswins]

Sanford does NOT want the funds....soooo...this is for him...

[allmost]

There is no logic to refusing the money at this point. The money is taken from state residents whether they like it or not. To refuse part of it back makes no sense to me.

[hyperconservative]

I’m pretty sure Congress doesn’t have the authority to neuter duly elected governors like this.

I expect lawsuits to be filed by the governors.

With this provision, the ‘Rat congress critters are attempting to rewrite the state constitutions and the republican form of government established by those ratified constitutions.

Of course, I’m not a lawyer yet but if I were a governor, I’d take Congress to court in a lickety-split minute!

[TeleStraightShooter]

Thanks for digging that out but this issue was settled over 200 years ago when the states required the 10th amendment as a prerequisite to adopting our USC.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.