« Ind. Law - Confusion continues about the local and state Indiana sex offender registries and the updates required by Wallace v. State | Main | Law - More on: New Michigan law permits vintners inside and outside the state to ship their products directly to consumers »
Monday, April 19, 2010
Law - Missouri Governor uses "signing statement" to strike part of budget bill
Fascinating story from the April 18, 2010 St. Louis Post-Dispatch by David A. Lieb of the AP - some quotes:
JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. (AP) -- Gov. Jay Nixon delivered a swift verdict when presented with a recent budget bill by legislators. He signed it into law, then he immediately judged a section on school funding to be unconstitutional and declared he would not follow it.Nixon's action appears to be unprecedented among recent Missouri governors. But it followed a centuries' old practice of U.S. presidents, who have cited constitutional grounds for ignoring portions of legislation that they sign.
The presidential practice has sparked outrage among some members of Congress. Nixon's action has caused similar alarm from some in the Missouri Capitol.
"It rocks the very nature of our foundation of a state, and I don't think I'm speaking in hyperbole," said Sen. Jason Crowell, R-Cape Girardeau.
That foundation to which Crowell refers is the constitutional separation of powers among the three branches of government. It is a basic principle of American civics that the legislative branch makes laws, the executive branch enforces laws and the judicial branch interprets laws.
"We now have a governor who thinks he's the judiciary as well," Crowell said.
Others are also miffed. * * *
If he objected to that approach, Nixon could have vetoed the bill and asked lawmakers to pass a new version. But Nixon instead signed the bill, directed the department to ignore the Legislature's instructions for dealing with the shortfall and sent legislators a message saying they had gone beyond their constitutional authority.
Nixon said the Legislature's directives violated a constitutional prohibition against changing laws through appropriations bills.
When The Associated Press inquired, Nixon's office cited two court cases as precedent.
In 1926, the Missouri Supreme Court struck down a provision in an appropriations bill barring state employees from being paid more than they had been during the previous two years. The court cited a constitutional provision prohibiting bills from containing more than one subject.
"To inject general legislation of any sort into an appropriation act is repugnant to the constitution," the court said in its written opinion.
In a 1999 case about where to locate a new state prison, a state appeals court again said that it would be unconstitutional for lawmakers to use an appropriations bill to change a state law.
Although not relying on presidents for his precedent, Nixon's action is nonetheless similar to what presidents have done throughout much of U.S. history.
Posted by Marcia Oddi on April 19, 2010 09:17 AM
Posted to General Law Related