This seems like somewhat of a bad joke, but it isn't.
See, Governor Mark Sanford was just this side of Ron Paul in terms of teh crazy anti-tax/anti-spending when he was a member of the U.S. House of Representatives.
In Keith Poole's highly circulated Is John Kerry a Liberal study from 2004, where he plotted every member of Congress from 1937 to 2002 (with multiple entries for party switchers); of the 3320 members, Ron Paul was of course 3320 (the most conservative, narrowly edging out John Birch Society members Larry McDonald and John Schmitz); Sanford was 3285.
But I don't know that even R0n P4v1 would go this far
South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford said he wasted no time filing a federal lawsuit to trump legislators Wednesday after they overrode a veto and required him to seek $700 million in federal stimulus cash. He said the vote to force him to seek the cash was unconstitutional and that he would fight it in court.
Unless I'm missing something, this seems pretty out there. I am obviously not a lawyer or a constitutional expert by any means, but that seems pretty silly. He vetoed it, and they overrode it, so now it's law.
What possible area of the U.S. Constitution could this violate?
He initially wasn't willing to tell us:
Sanford said the Legislature was running "roughshod over today's and tomorrow's taxpayers by overriding" the stimulus veto and that he sued in federal court in Columbia Wednesday night. His spokesman would not make a copy of the lawsuit available or provide details of who Sanford was suing.
But now he has
Sanford says the lawsuit isn't about the budget or the stimulus, but about maintaining the proper balance of power in state government. He argues that there's no need to have a governor if the legislature can tie that person's hands.
"Filing this lawsuit is the last thing we want to be doing, but our hands have been forced on this front and letting these actions stand would be both a disservice to taxpayers and set a terrible precedent for future governorships," Sanford says.
In the suit, Sanford argues that the South Carolina Constitution grants him the supreme executive authority of South Carolina. He says part of the budget violates the separation of powers clause by denying him his executive authority.
Sanford says the lawsuit is being done by an attorney through pro bono work.
The lawyers are from a firm called KILPATRICK STOCKTON LLP
Um, yeah. Sure, Mark. "Supreme Executive Authority", as Monty Python says, comes from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony.
Here are some excerpts from the SC Constitution I think imply otherwise:
ARTICLE I SECTION 7. Suspension of laws.
The power to suspend the laws shall be exercised only by the General Assembly or by its authority in particular cases expressly provided for by it. (1970 (56) 2684; 1971 (57) 315.)
...
ARTICLE IV SECTION 15. Faithful execution of laws.
The Governor shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed. To this end, the Attorney General shall assist and represent the Governor, but such power shall not be construed to authorize any action or proceeding against the General Assembly or the Supreme Court. (1972 (57) 3171; 1973 (58) 48.)
Mind you, it seems the SC Constitution itself is pretty blatantly unconstitutional:
SECTION 2. Qualifications of Governor.
No person shall be eligible to the office of Governor who denies the existence of the Supreme Being; and who on the date of such election has not attained the age of thirty years; and who shall not have been a citizen of the United States and a citizen and resident of this State for five years next preceding the day of election. No person while Governor shall hold any office or other commission (except in the militia) under the authority of this State, or of any other power. (1972 (57) 3171; 1973 (58) 48.)
SECTION 4. Supreme Being.
No person who denies the existence of a Supreme Being shall hold any office under this Constitution.
And there's some other interesting amendments:
SECTION 33. Age of consent.
No unmarried woman shall legally consent to sexual intercourse who shall not have attained the age of fourteen years. (1999 Act No. 3.)
But married 12 year old girls can, huh?
Anyway, that's more than enough South Carolina Constitution silliness. Let me just insert a boiler-plate statement here about Republicans filing frivolous lawsuits. Sanford's full complaint can be found here