Why not eliminate these two paragraphs, eliminate the risk of litigation, eliminate the risk of running afoul of the Constitution in respect to the separation of powers? This troubles me. Why have language in the bill that would open up further litigation? If we truly intend to limit or to rescind future Federal mandates and not fully fund them, then I believe such actions should be taken by the Congress.
Discussing concerns about potential litigation and constitutional issues in a bill.
Share
More from Cord Byrd
I opposed the Ensign and Stabenow amendments regarding Social Security and illegal immigrants, because those amendments violated section 313 of the Budget Act--the Byrd Rule--which prohibits extraneous matter on budget reconciliation…
We do not sit idle waiting for bad things to happen in order to correct them.
Florida is committed to ensuring that all eligible Floridians who want to vote have the opportunity to do so.
Other voices in this conversation
