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 support this alternative to the President's deeply flawed budget policies. The President submitted a budget request with a shocking price tag, $3.1 trillion. In the entire history of the Republic, the Congress has never had to grapple…
I was saddened to learn that my good friend and former colleague, Senator Howard Metzenbaum, has passed away. He was a man of courage, conviction, commitment, and toughness. He was a labor lawyer and union lobbyist, who grew up in poverty…
I am anxious to see action on this issue, but I keep asking myself, are we doing the right thing for the wrong reasons, or the wrong thing for the right reasons? Either way, I cannot support proceeding at this time. The Senate is not yet…
I am proud to support H.R. 1195, a bill to amend the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act, and the benefits that it will provide to West Virginia and the rest of the country. However, I must oppose the two…
Other voices in this conversation
