Sanford Files Suit Over Stimulus Money

South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford has filed suit against South Carolina Attorney Gen. Henry McMaster over action taken by the state legislature which would have required the governor to accept federal stimulus money.

Sanford has been fighting a battle over the money for months now, taking heat from those in the Palmetto State who feel that the funds could help struggling schools and could assist in stemming the state’s above-average unemployment, while himself arguing that the money would handcuff the state into funding unsustainable programs itself after the federal money runs out.

Accepting the federal cash, Sanford stated in the court documents, “would require his agreement to these onerous federal educational mandates and unsustainable spending commitments, would further burden South Carolina’s economy and substantially increase the state’s debt in the future and therefore is contrary to the welfare of the people of South Carolina.”

I happen to agree with him. Not only would it commit the state to perpetuate new programs–likely through tax increases–initially funded by the stimulus package after the stimulus money runs out, but it would open the Palmetto State up to federal control. For example, just look at the fiscally floundering state of California, where the federal government, essentially on behalf of the Service Employees International Union, recently threatened to withhold billions of dollars in federal stimulus money if Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger went ahead with a plan to cut pay for home health care workers.

Meanwhile, in Missouri, stimulus money which was intended to go toward shovel-ready projects that would create jobs, the funds instead are going to expand domestic violence programs and to pay income tax refunds. However, when Sanford proposed that, if he were to take stimulus cash, he wanted to use $700 million of such funds to pay down state debt, he was rebuked by journalists and had his request refused by the White House. See? It’s not about stimulus. It’s about control.

Sanford is right. With the federal government, there is no such thing as “no strings attached,” and one-by-one it seems that other governors are beginning to see the light. Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty took the money yet now has admitted that he wished he hadn’t. Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin is in the middle of a legal battle over energy efficiency-related funds she turned away.

It’s a nightmare. Just like the bank bailouts were more about control than anything else (otherwise, the federal government would allow the banks to repay the money), the stimulus money is driven by the same motives. For this administration, crisis lends itself to control.

This lawsuit is more than just a governor suing a state attorney general. This lawsuit is about federalism, about state sovereignty, about the balance of power not just in South Carolina, but from coast to coast. And, as a future resident of the Palmetto State, I support my future governor 100 percent.

Share

Comments

  1. Anonymous says:

    Sanford is a solid conservative, and he is absolutely right to stick up for the states.

  2. Thos. Jefferson says:

    GO, MARK, GO!!

  3. Spence says:

    Sanford is a member of the Bilderbergers… I don’t trust him or Rick Perry. I trust Sarah Palin, who has not sold her soul to the elites. Don’t believe me? Look up Mark Sanford Bilderberg attendance list and see for yourself. He is a plant.

  4. Gail B says:

    Lord, bless Mark Sanford for his courage, values, and wisdom. Thank you for putting a man of principle at the head of South Carolina’s government. Keep him safe. I ask this in the name of your only Son, Jesus. Amen.

  5. terry says:

    And this, my friends, is where the fight begins. Let’s continue to expose this administration for what it is… an ATTEMPT to undo everything that our founding fathers and our military has fought to get away from.

    I am just afraid that our Court will side with Obama and his left wing… Constitution be damned, way of doing business.

  6. Mick says:

    Where was he when it was time to question Obama’s Natural born citizen problem? How mush of a conservative hero can he be?

    Here is Part 1 of my letter to US Attorney Jeffrey Taylor

    Jeffrey Taylor

    United States Attorney’s Office

    555 4th Street N.W.

    Washington, D.C 20530

    Dear Mr. Taylor,

    I am sure that you have been made aware of the Constitutional Crisis that is festering within the District of Colombia. The central Government of the U.S has been marching towards an ever increasing control over American Citizens by ignoring the tenets of Limited government as set forth by our Constitution. The political parties have usurped the state’s control of assuring a Presidential Candidate’s Constitutional qualifications to run for the office. You are probably aware of the deceptive nature of Resolution 511, an attempt by congress to legislate the meaning of Natural Born Citizen with a resolution that has no force of law. At the hearings for that Resolution Michael Chertoff and Senator Leahy agreed that a Natural Born Citizen was born of CITIZEN PARENTS. They got that part of the equation correct, but what about the jus soli part? Senator McCain, who’s Natural Born Citizen status the resolution was addressing, was born in Colon, Panama according to his Birth Certificate. How does Senator Leahy and the rest of Congress, who were all part of the hearing, support Barack Obama as a candidate for president, and now elected president, when it is well known that his father, Barack Obama Sr., was a Kenyan national? On Barack Obama’s “Fight the Smears” website he admits that due to his father’s Kenyan citizenship Barack Obama’s Citizenship was governed by the British Nationality Act of 1949. Barack Obama’s dual citizenship at birth (US and Great Britain) should disqualify him from holding the office of President.

    continued….

  7. Mick says:

    part 2 of my letter requestin Quo warrant to Jeffrey Taylor.

    In my home state of Florida State Statute 99.21 requires that candidates for all National political office take a candidate Oath that attests to the candidate’s constitutional qualification for the office he is running to attain. However Fla. state statute 103.11 institutes The Presidential Primary Selection Committee presided over by the Secretary of State of Fla., in which 10 members of the political parties and Congress select candidates to be on the State Ballot. Only a Presidential candidate’s own party member can raise a question as to the qualification of any presidential candidate. There is nothing in the wording of either statute that precludes a national candidate from taking the candidate oath of Fl. SS 99.21, yet that step is bypassed. The Citizens of Florida have effectively been shut out of the vetting process. The Secretary of state of the various states have said that they only perform a ministerial duty, and that the Political Parties verify the qualifications of their candidates, yet the Socialist Candidate, Mr. Calero, born in Nicaragua, was kicked off the ballot by the SOS’s of 5 states. Is this only selective enforcement?

    continued….

  8. Mick says:

    part 3 of letter to Jeffrey Taylor

    I am sure that Mr. Obama had questions about his qualification as a Natural Born Citizen. He is after all a constitutional Lecturer and Harvard Law grad. There is not a clear on point Supreme Court decision that sets the meaning in stone as it relates to Presidential qualification, although Perkins v. Elg does define a Natural Born citizen as the product of a child born in the US of citizen parents, it is not a decision about who can run for president. The dicta of the case though does point to a Mr. Steinkauler born of naturalized American citizens in the US as being able to run for president of the US if he so chooses.

    The argument has been made that the qualification for Natural Born Citizens to run for President is an antiquated relic of a time passed, or that it is discriminatory, or that it is not defined anywhere in the constitution. The Founders put the requirement into the constitution virtually without discussion. It was a well known term in the late 1700’s from a treatise on Natural Law by Vattel, a contemporary of the Framers, called “Law of Nations”. It is also well known that the framers used Vattel’s work in formulating their thoughts on Natural god-given rights of individuals. In breaking away from England, the Framers sought to break from the English Common Law dictatorial practice of England claiming as it’s citizens all those born within England’s territory, regardless of parent’s nationality. The only sensible way to avoid dual allegiances was to determine nationality of newborns by the nationality of the parents. Vattel said that “the natives, or Natural Born Citizens, are those born in a country to parents who are it’s citizens”. To the framers this was a common sense way to assure the highest probability of complete allegiance to the United States, and was a very well known term at the time, requiring no debate. In light of the framers well documented desire to assure allegiance to the US, and no other foreign power, could they possibly have thought that children born in the US of illegal aliens could be president or VP? This is not saying that Barack Obama’s father was an illegal alien, I only point to the belief that “Born in the US alone equals a Natural Born Citizen” as simply illogical in light of the founders well known reason for the requirement, as documented in the Federalist Papers. The qualification for Natural Born citizenship is certainly not discriminatory, as it comprises the highest percentage of US Citizens, and also does not require Native citizen parents, Naturalized Citizen parents can also produce Natural Born Citizens. Although the passage of time, lack of education, judicial activism, and congressional manipulation have blurred the meaning of the term “Natural Born Citizen”, there is much documentation as to the meaning of the term from a variety of sources over time. You can point to the hearings for Resolution 511 (4/2008), where Mr. Chertoff and Sen. Leahy agreed that a Natural Born citizen requires citizen parents (but prevaricated on the fact of McCain’s place of birth), Perkins v. Elg (1939), John Bingham’s statements during the Congressional hearings for the 14th Amendment, the Naturalization Act of 1790, and it’s repeal by the Naturalization Act of 1795 (passed by many of the members of the Constitutional Congress), and of course Vattels “Law of Nations”, all pointing to the born on US soil to citizen parents definition

    continued…

  9. Mick says:

    Part 4 of letter to Jeffrey Taylor.

    By the text of the Constitution itself we know what a Natural Born Citizen is NOT. Article 2 Section 1 clause 5 requires a president to be a Natural Born Citizen, “or a citizen at the time of the ratification of this constitution”. It is clear that the framers, although born British Citizens, trusted themselves since they fought for emancipation, but not others. Barack Obama and John McCain were certainly born after 1788. It is clear by the text of the Constitution that Natural Born Citizen is different from “Citizen”. Defenders of the “Born in the US equals Natural Born Citizen” argument may point to the Wong Kim Ark case, however that case is not about the requirements to become President, and Judge Gray also refused to deem Wong a Natural Born Citizen, although in deeming Wong a “citizen” he went diametrically against his own definition of 14th Amendment “jurisdiction” made 14 years earlier in Elk v. Wilkins. His Wong Kim Ark definition of “citizen” goes to a more Common Law view of jurisdiction that defenders of the “Born in the US equals Natural Born Citizen” notion tend to hold onto. However, as you well know, Justice Scalia has recently said that the Common Law is Dead. Defenders of the “Born in the US equals Natural Born Citizen” definition also point to the 14th Amendment, saying that it amends the Natural Born Citizen requirement. You will note that the words “Natural Born Citizen” are not in that Amendment, and that it is well documented that the writers of the Amendment meant it to reinforce the Bill of Rights and to give citizenship rights to negroes. Furthermore the seminal Marbury v. Madison case states that all Constitutional Phrases have an effect, and any argument that serves to make that effect moot is INADMISSABLE. If a 14th Amendment “Born” citizen is deemed to be a Natural Born Citizen, then Article 2 Section 1, clauses 4 and 5 are moot.

    Mr. Taylor, as a citizen of this great nation I urge you to once and for all settle the question of Barack Obama’s qualification as a Natural Born Citizen through a Quo Warranto proceeding in the District of Colombia. The decision to bring this action rests with you and Attorney Holder (who may have a conflict of interest). It is the only constitutional avenue to address this Constitutional Crisis that is not going away. Members of our brave military need to be assured that they are taking orders from a legal President, collateral attacks (by death row inmates, for instance) are sure to pick up steam. I know that this issue must weigh heavily upon your mind, but I think that you are a patriot and you will see that it is right to go against the political winds and settle the question once and for all.

    Sincerely and Patriotically,

    Why didn’t Mark Sanford stand up and question the qualifications of the Usurper? What kind of patriot could he be?

  10. Anonymous says:

    I support him too. I live in Richland County southeast in the Eastover area. I sent him an email and called him i support him and told him not to let that racist James Clyburn change his mind. I sent Clyburn an e-mail and included my address, and he told me he didn’t answer e-mails if it wasn’t from district 6. I sent him a reply and ask him where did he think Eastover was? It is in your district. He never replied back or answered my question. Remember when he said that Sanford’s refusal to take the stimulus money was a slap in the face to the blacks? That’s what I e-mailed him about. He (Clyburn) also made other racist comments.

  11. Anonymous says:

    I agree with Spence.

  12. Anonymous says:

    South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford has a webpage, called Waste of the Day.

    http://www.scgovernor.com/priorities/waste/

    Jeff, It would be great if you could do a piece on that. Maybe more representatives would start similiar webpages! We need Americans to become aware of what is happening in their own backyard.

  13. Anonymous says:

    I agree with Spence, too.

    What everyone must understand is at the global elites that REALLY run the world use both sides of the aisle, both apparent liberals and conservatives alike! I am sad, because Mark Sanford seems like a good guy, but what in the world is he doing at a Bilderberg conference? You don’t get invited by Bilderberg unless they have some use for you…sometimes your use is to give the perception of a “balanced group”. They invite conservatives to act as a decoy and deflection, but they also invite conservatives because sometimes, those “conservatives” have globalist leanings. Globalism is not just reserved for liberal/socialist/marxist people.

    Same goes for the Council on Foreign Relations!

    You are welcome to think me a kook AFTER you do some real, thorough research on the CFR and Bilderberg groups…and if you read nothing but their own quotes, by their own members, you will begin to look at the world MUCH differently!

    Lisa in TX

  14. Larry Walker Jr says:

    I stand with the Governor. So you’re moving to SC! I live in GA but hang out in SC. I love the palmetto’s, the sea, the food, and the people. Maybe we’ll see you at Myrtle Beach some day.

  15. Anonymous says:

    “I do not want the President to fail Sir, he has already failed.”

Speak Your Mind

*