[GreatOne]

I believe that the issue is this: If a budget is passed and signed into law, and after that occurs a budget crisis occurs and less funds are taken, the governonr would have the power to use the allotment process to unilaterally cut programs. The key is that the funding issues were not known when the budget passed, and everyone believed sufficient funds were available for the programs passed.

But that is not what happened here.

On the other hand (as happened here), if the budget shortfall occurs prior to the setting of the budget, is known to everyone involved, and the legislature passes a budget which is signed into law, the governor cannot then immediately turn around and declare insufficient funds and trigger the allotment. If he believed there was not enough funds prior to signing the budget, he needs to use his veto power (which Pawlenty did for some of the requested programs the DFL wanted funded). This is exactly what happened here.

If this is somehow constitutional, then a governor could do this any year. Obviously, this cannot be allowed, unless we want to do away with the legislative process.

Happy New Year!

[Dead Corpse]

The Legislative legislates, the Executive executes. A firm check and balance is that there is a separation of powers. If the Governor is simply required to rubber stamp the Legislature and do as he is told, why bother having him?

Part of the basis for a tripartate system is exactly this.

What this now says is that even though the Governor has this power, he can't use it and must sit down, shut up, and write the checks.

Which would you prefer? An Executive that uses a negative power to not enforce bad law? Or one that just does whatever he wants regardless of whatever the law says?

Pawlenty is doing the first, Obama the second.

Think about it...