It was bound to happen...

[TheGame]

Originally Posted by Professor S

Game, you cite the NY case, but read the last sentence:

"The larger entity may then assume some agreed-upon oversight in order to prevent recurrence of the problem"

I don't believe this was agreed upon.

The funny part is, the last sentance was the biggest point I had there. Because I belive this oversight WAS agreed upon before the fact. Which is our base disagreement.

If the act of taking the money back was not something that was allowed by the original agreement, then that's the base california would be fighting on. But they're not, so obviously they have the right to threaten taking back the bail out since california is not adhereing to the agreemnt they had. (And unfortunately, this is not unconstitutional.)

Now, of course I don't have the paperwork or anything to back me up on that.. but this is why some states turned down the funds, and this is why california had every right to turn it down too.

So once again, this problem rests on the irresponceability of the state, not of the federal government.