Unofficial Voice of the Utah Senate Majority
Welcome to The Senate Site
Twitter/
Saturday, February 02, 2008Checks and Balances
The Executive Branch signs agreements. The Legislative Branch ratifies.
Checks and Balances. On Friday, Senate President John Valentine answered some questions about Senator Scott Jenkins' SB 144 for a few reporters. (And we recorded part of it, above.) Bill text.
posted by The Senate Site at 4:41 PM | Link
|
Government 2.0 AccessoriesRadio Free SenatePast Five Twitter UpdatesKeep in TouchYour Government 2.0 Lab
Current Discussions
Senate Site Feed
|
© 2008. All rights reserved. Designed by Jeremy Wright & His Brother-In-Law
4 Comments:
The governor effectively makes laws when he agrees to any interstate agreement. When approved by the U.S. Congress, these types of agreements are enforceable under the Contract, Compact, and Supremacy Clauses of the U.S. Constitution. Even when not approved by the U.S. Congress, these types of agreements are still enforceable contracts. Every time the governor agrees to an interstate agreement, he puts the state's money and prestige on the line.
This bill is not retroactive, therefore it would not apply to anything agreed to by the governor before the bill was passed.
You should add some background music to the videos to spice them up a little bit...
The President refers only to executive branch agreements with fiscal impact. If that's the issue, doesn't the Legislature already have a check against the Executive Branch by holding the purse strings? If the issue is agreements and compacts with fiscal impact, why doesn't the bill reflect that? It requires approval for ALL agreements.
It's time the Legislature stepped back from trying manage and execute government. It should do what its members have been elected to do - legislate laws (not execute on them)!
To Legislative Creep,
It's true that the legislature holds the purse strings, but the bill prevents a slightly different scenario than what you imply (if I'm reading you correctly).
Currently, the governor may obligate the state to an interstate agreement. The legislature may choose not to fund any obligation incurred by the agreement, but it does so at the risk of violating the terms of the agreement. These agreements are valid contracts, and if congressionaly approved, these agreements are federal law. As a result, there are fiscal and reputational consquences to every agreement executed by the governor, regardless of whether the legislature eventually ratifies the agreement.
As I understand the bill, it prevents the state from being put in the awkward position of being committed to an agreement that it will never be funded.
Post a Comment
<< Home