OCR Text |
Show ENTERPRISE ? PRAGMATIC DOGMATICS The Budget Session y ft. by Kent Shearer For ill or well, Utahs legislature convenes d annually. In years, like this one, the session is devoted to budget. Items even-numbere- j not directly related thereto can be considered only if permitted by a joint resolution adopted s of each house, i.e. 20 Senators by and 50 Representatives. Also, the session is relatively short: 20 days save in cases of impeachment. So, commencing Jan. 9, Capitol Hill will receive legislators who then will proceed to work their way on the budget and on such other matters as can command two-thirallegience. will be itself The budget presented by Governor Matheson. He has had a full year to work on it, which was not the case in 1977 when Matheson had been barely inaugurated. The legislature will amend, add to, or subtract two-third- ds iA feAUPfglt u& - i Webers undoubtedly will exact a pound or two of flesh (c.g., the Police Academy, the Ogden Railroad Station, etc.) as their price to refrain from obstructionism. One usually prospects that few enactments will be enacted and that those few will be of an emergency character, unmarred by controversy. Such is not necessarily the case. Not long ago, a Budget Session y passed a highly infiamatory closing bill, subsequently declared uncons stitutional. The point is that it is a vote not widespread public demand or acceptance which is the test. So, there arc a few certainties about the forthcoming session. One thing, however, is highly unlikely that there will be an over-al- l tax cut. Most Democrats and many Republicans don't think in those terms any more. Therefore, do your best to enjoy the legislative show about to unfold. Youd better, for youll sure pay for it in the end. from the executive proposals. The legislative work product, however, will not be final for the Governor has a line item veto through which he can strike any appropriation and, practically speaking, can so time his action to preclude non-budgeta- legislative override. Party politics will not pass anything. On budgetary subjects, the 3 Republican majority in the House will neutralize the fact that 3 Matheson is a Democrat and enjoys a Democratic Senate margin. On bills, neither party holds a position in either body. Regional politics, however, could well be very much in evidence. The Weber County delegation (four Senators and nine Representatives) have earned distinction in this regard. With those worthies acting as a third force, the count in the Senate is 13 Republicans, 12 In the Democrats, and four Webers. House, it is 40 Republicans, 26 Democrats, and nine Webers. Given that arithmetic, the 42-3- 16-1- non-budgeta- two-thir- two-third- ds so lio ifAfSUB? TO FIV ry Sunday-or-Satur-da- ry SOI 10 r ceossep ROUOeOA A T, me atiajotic -- AW Efg AIBPIAU5 l AT 0,000 Feet TH006HT: 'A FRAU (7 IS RVIU3 AU AIRPLAY." 60 . J Trap none I TOOK 1 A B WMC E SHOT i To -- mcoo- i t j ). i i&Q-if- mPA& lUOUSttT: "A FRW e M7ACPI isREiaxwe uauspAP veemsf. AUP COO FKSEP row (jOCRIP imim af - ; wt MU MUWm siuacATV i 5 APiuuie' mo? HAS qmep w MttX). ! rnmAmc u a bwboat. 01 VOK A THOUGHT: m l i -- m! &R7T M&T832. l- -T t .1 5'j i. ! r; Rescission byScaevola (0 0z z f f ri k f j Many of us thought the Carter Administration had exhausted its capacity for tortured logic in the Bakke Case brief. Clearly we were wrong. The Justice Department testimony before the House of Representatives on the question of extending the ratification period for the Equal Rights Amendment indicates there may be no limit to its ability to twist reason to reach predetermined ends. To be fair, it docs not appear to me there is much question about the extension itself. The seven year period in the original proposal was established in legislation submitting the proposed amendment to the States, and not as a part of the amendment itself, as used to be done. I am willing to concede that Congress can change that period to nine, fourteen, or some other number, and perhaps by simple majorities of both houses. But Assistant Attorney General John Harmon went much further. He addressed the question of rescission and concluded that a state could not revoke its ratification, once given. The Constitution, he said, gives the states the power to ratify a It is my view proposed amendment, but not the power to reject. that a state is powerless to rescind. That is a novel theory of the American political system. To begin with, the Constitution docs not give the states to limit the powers of powers. The Constitution was designed the federal goverment. Its limitations on the states arc accretions, but even so. they arc limitations, not grants of power. The Constitution says nothing about the states regulating the insurance industry, but the states do it. No doubt Mr. Harmon objects to this naked power grab, but there it is. The Tenth Amendment has some bearing here, and Mr. Harmon ought to take a look at it. Under its terms, all powers not enumerated in the Constitution itself arc reserved to the states, or to the people. Surely that includes the power to rescind their own actions. The practical implications of Mr. Harmons argument arc ludicrous. If he is correct, a proposed amendment would be validly ratified if 38 states ratified it, even though 37 of them had rescinded before the 38th acted. How ridiculous! The process of constitutional amendment is designed to permit changes in our basic law when there is a deeply and widely felt s need. That is the reason for the requirement. should consensus of that absence Anything which signals the be taken very seriously. Rescission by a state is clearly such a signal, and ought to be permitted as a matter of course. I suppose I will be unable to convince proponents of the ERA that I would make exactly these arguments no matter what the issue, but I would. It happens that I oppose the ERA, and I sense a serious waning in enthusiasm for it, now that its implications are becoming known. That shift in mood will likely produce other rescissions, and we would be unwise to forcibly graft onto our basic law a branch not clearly supported by an overwhelming majority. But the merits aside, it is simply wrong political to twist Constitutional interpretations to fit short-teris a inclined do. That to Administration appears goals, as this long step onto the slippery slope of arbitrary government. three-fourth- m |