« previous | MUCK HOME | next »

Coconut Road: A Historical Perspective

Transportation Weekly editor Jeff Davis takes a thorough look at the historical precedent for Rep. Don Young's (R-AK) Coconut Road earmark language edit, discovering that the Supreme Court has looked at this issue before .

In the freewheeling 1890s, the court concluded in Field v. Clark that a bill signed into law is the law, despite any apparent discrepancies in the Congressional record:

Better, far better, that a provision should occasionally find its way into the statute through mistake, or even fraud, than that every act, state and national, should, at any and all times, be liable to be put in issue and impeached by the journals, loose papers of the legislature, and parol evidence. Such a state of uncertainty in the statute of laws of the land would lead to mischiefs absolutely intolerable...

Davis notes that since the Field decision, the court has grown more wary of official corruption, as reflected in McConnell v. FEC. This could mean the court would consider overturning Field in a case currently being considered for review, Public Citizen v. Clerk. It that decision did overturn Field, the entire 2005 highway bill could be found unconstitutional. That outcome seems unlikely and would certainly take a long time to reach.

In the meantime, Republicans on the House Transportation Committee have signaled that they may allow the Florida county involved to keep the money for the purpose originally described, though they do not have a concrete plan of how that would happen.


Comments (3)

RaindeerDawg wrote on September 9, 2007 2:38 AM:

November 2008 can not come soon enough. Donny is going to be ousted. You can get away with some pretty slimey stuff in this state, but Alaskans are coming together and organizing to get this man out of office. Hold tight America, we're working on it.

AlaskaVet wrote on September 10, 2007 12:04 AM:

Yes, DY is history. He will either: a) resign; b) decline to run for re-election; or, c) run and get beaten badly by Jake Metcalfe. The distinct possibility of indictment and trial for his illegal and unethical abuse of power will instruct which of these options occur. Meanwhile, the only remaining mystery is whether he will do hard time.

Richard M. Mathews wrote on September 11, 2007 6:07 PM:

The application of the Field decision is not appropriate here.

In Field, it was argued that because one provision was left out of the final bill, the entire act must be nullified. In particular, plaintiffs hoped that because a provision related to tobacco was left out, a tax on textiles should be invalidated. This argument was quite reasonably rejected by the Court.

I have not heard anyone argue that because this one appropriation was changed by Rep. Young following passage of the bill that the entire bill must be thrown out. There is no doubt that the remainder of the appropriations bill is valid.

If the question is more narrowly put as to which version of this particular provision should be put into effect, then the Field decision gives no answer.

Post a comment

Share
Close Social Web Email

"To" Email Address

Your Name

Your Email Address