Is the DEQ Budget Bill Constitutional or Unconstitutional?
On Thursday, the House Republicans pushed through, on a nearly party line vote, a DEQ Budget Bill which contained the following language in Section 6 of the bill:
"neither the Department of Environmental Quality nor the Environmental Quality Commission may expend any moneys for the biennium beginning July 1, 2005, to adopt or enforce rules that impose California auto emission standards on motor vehicles sold, leased or titled in Oregon"
Article IX, Section 7 of the Oregon Constitution states:
"Appropriation laws not to contain provisions on other subjects. Laws making appropriations, for the salaries of public officers, and other current expenses of the State, shall contain provisions upon no other subject."
The section has been interpreted for decades to specifically prohibit budget bills from containing policy provisions.
Please post your answer to the following questions:
1. Did the DEQ budget bill violate Artile IX, Section 7 of the Oregon Constitution?
2. Is it smart policy to prohibit the Department of Environmental Quality from adopting stronger emissions standards?
Posted on June 17, 2005
Question of the Week
Comments
(Note: Comments are the views of their authors, and no one else.)
Posted by: Anonymous - June 17, 2005 03:47 PM
1. Probably not.
2. Hell no.
Posted by: Benjamin Kaplin - June 17, 2005 06:11 PM
Yup. Unconstitutional. Freaking conservatives.
Posted by: Pat Ryan - June 21, 2005 11:39 AM
Sounds unconstitutional based on your two excerpts.
Return question. Does the caucus have counsel to address these issues? Seems like we might find such a person very useful......
I'm just sayin'.....
Posted by: Jon Isaacs - June 21, 2005 02:51 PM
Pat,
The Legislature has its own counsel, one that provides legal advice and guidance to all the members and the body as a whole...that's what Legislative Counsel is for. And according to LC, the DEQ amendment was unconstitutional. The legislature is supposed to follow LC's legal advice in these matters.
The interesting question, thus, becomes why the Republican leadership choose to ignore the legal advice and opinion of its own counsel, and instead listen to the legal advice of the lobbyist for the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, who claimed this was in fact constitutional for obviously self-interested reasons.
Posted by: Pat Ryan - June 22, 2005 12:52 PM
So to paraphrase Rummy, "You ignore the counsel that you have not the one you might've wished you'd had........"
Maybe we could charge 'em for wasting state resources if they wind up losing in court over this one.
We can always dream....