I’m reading this story about the just-passed federal legislation that would provide some $850 million in extra funds for public school districts in Texas to help prevent layoffs and whatnot, conditional on Texas agreeing to actually use the money on education and not general fund budget-balancing, and I have a question.
[Governor Rick] Perry argues that it’s unconstitutional for him to guarantee any future legislative action.
“Hopefully, somehow or another, they can slip it out of there,” he said of the provision that is already part of the law.
“Everyone understands that this is not doable,” he said. “The Constitution is the Constitution. You have to respect it.”
I would be slow to trust Rick Perry’s interpretation of the Constitution in the best of times; I’m certainly not willing to take his word for it now. But that doesn’t mean he’s wrong, so let me ask: Where in the Constitution does it say what Congress has done is illegal? I know that in Texas, you can’t write a law that says “this only applies to Houston”, but you can write one that says (in essence) “this only applies to a city with over two million people”, which is to say Houston. I have yet to see anyone say what the Constitutional principle is that’s at play here. Can some lawyer out there enlighten me on this? Thanks.
Very dangerous to think like Rick Perry, but he probably means that, as governor, he can’t guarantee what the Lege will do because it violates the separation of executive and legislative powers. That’s B.S., and probably was Perry’s excuse last time around for spending the money on his own agenda. Congress sends money to the states with strings attached all the time. When Nixon started the practice, they called it the “New Federalism.”
Charles, my understanding is that Perry is claiming that the prohibition against state debt imposed by Art. II, Sec. 49 of the Texas Constitution (with certain exceptions) prevents him from guaranteeing how funds will be spent in future years. Courts have generally taken a fairly broad view of obligations that extend beyond a year, and while one would have to consult an attorney on the details, sometimes these multi-year obligations are deemed unconstitutional.
Perry’s claim, however, is bogus, because all his letter to the feds needs to state is that within the confines of the Texas Constitution, he will do his dead level best to ensure that the federal education dollars are not diverted to fill other gaps in the budget and that he will not otherwise divert state education dollars to fill those gaps.
Thanks, fellas. That helps a lot.