Quick! Support an unconstitutional feelgood bill!
Posted: Sat Apr 09, 2011 2:06 amhttp://hutchison.senate.gov/?p=press_release&id=523
The Bill
Yeah, warms the cockles of your patriotic heart, right? What could possibly be wrong with this?
Let us count the ways.
1) This one's just a technicality, but the bill is pretty clearly an apportionment bill, which are supposed to originate in the House
2) The bill gives the Secretary of the Treasury the authority to appropriate funds. The Constitution is very explicit about this: As Section 9 of Article 1 states: "No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time." This bill is clearly unconstitutional on face.
3) The only reason why soldiers wouldn't get paid is because there would be no one to sign their checks. As salaried workers that are effectively on duty at all times, they can't be not paid; it's against the law. Unfortunately, they'll have to wait until the end of the shutdown to actually be paid. Unlike the other government workers, mind you.
I wouldn't be so worked up about this if it weren't for the fact that 79 US Senators sponsored this bill!
Of course, with the mindless "Support the troops" mentality that's been hammered into people here, this kind of shenaniganery is to be expected. But when a supermajority of the Senate, supposedly the dispassionate, august body of learned minds, latches onto such a short-term non-issue that has already resolved itself (see the budget deal), I think it's safe to say that the US Constitution is broken beyond repair.
The Bill
To appropriate such funds as may be necessary to ensure that members of the Armed Forces, including reserve components thereof, and supporting civilian and contractor personnel continue to receive pay and allowances for active service performed when a funding gap caused by the failure to enact interim or full-year appropriations for the Armed Forces occurs, which results in the furlough of non-emergency personnel and the curtailment of Government activities and services.
Yeah, warms the cockles of your patriotic heart, right? What could possibly be wrong with this?
Let us count the ways.
1) This one's just a technicality, but the bill is pretty clearly an apportionment bill, which are supposed to originate in the House
2) The bill gives the Secretary of the Treasury the authority to appropriate funds. The Constitution is very explicit about this: As Section 9 of Article 1 states: "No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time." This bill is clearly unconstitutional on face.
3) The only reason why soldiers wouldn't get paid is because there would be no one to sign their checks. As salaried workers that are effectively on duty at all times, they can't be not paid; it's against the law. Unfortunately, they'll have to wait until the end of the shutdown to actually be paid. Unlike the other government workers, mind you.
I wouldn't be so worked up about this if it weren't for the fact that 79 US Senators sponsored this bill!
Of course, with the mindless "Support the troops" mentality that's been hammered into people here, this kind of shenaniganery is to be expected. But when a supermajority of the Senate, supposedly the dispassionate, august body of learned minds, latches onto such a short-term non-issue that has already resolved itself (see the budget deal), I think it's safe to say that the US Constitution is broken beyond repair.
They have a lot of guns too! However they were going to be paid!