[KingPrad]

I'm American and have mixed feelings on this. National Parks can definitely be massive operations during the summer months so I understand charging a fee. But it also removes this public good from the poor and I think that's wrong. Maybe the park system provides free/cheap passes via welfare programs.

I'm more concerned that many state parks charge up to $15/day usage fee. A fee just to enter and hike or play around a lake. I think that's very wrong. Simple fun in the outdoors ought to cheap recreation option - the cost to get there and whatever food you want to bring. It is gross that we fund these great places through taxes, then only those you can easily pay again can use them.

[r00fus]

I liked the CA prop a few years ago that pushed fees into your vehicle registration and just made it free to arrive if you showed a registration.

It would have made the parks a lot more sustainable in terms of revenue and increase the quality while making it cheaper for anyone who went more than once or twice a year.

[vinay427]

I don't think this is a great solution. For one thing, it favors car owners, which would discourage many people who live in Denver cities and people who have particularly low incomes. For another, it's not really a fee for the parks anymore when people are obligated to pay it for something largely unrelated. That's more of a tax, and while I wouldn't have a problem with paying it myself, it moves away from the current status quo that people who use the park help pay a little more for its maintenance. I think that's alright in principle for public wonders like the parks, but focusing the fee on car owners seems a little arbitrary.

[glitcher]

Similarly, it just feels plain wrong whenever there is a government shutdown and huge national parks are "closed". I'm sure there are good arguments on both side of this, but to me the idea that you can close a large expanse of wilderness seems absurd.

[skissane]

> it just feels plain wrong whenever there is a government shutdown

I don't know why Americans put up with that silly government shutdown nonsense. In most countries that never happens. I think the solution is really simple – all a President has to do is call Congress' bluff and order the government to stay open, and to apply the previous budget on a pro rata basis.

"But that's illegal!", people say. Well, it would violate the Antideficiency Act. But, the Antideficiency Act is rather toothless. Nobody has ever been prosecuted for violating it, and the President can always use prosecutorial discretion and the power of pardon to prevent any such prosecutions. Would the Supreme Court order the government to close? Maybe it would, maybe it wouldn't, the Supreme Court is very unpredictable. But, assuming it doesn't, Congress can either accept it, or impeach and remove the President. Given removal of a President requires a two-thirds vote of the Senate, it probably wouldn't happen.

[dragonwriter]

> Well, it would violate the Antideficiency Act.

More to the point, it would violate an express prohibition in Art. I, Sec. 9 of the Constitution: “No money shall be drawn from the treasury, but in consequence of appropriations made by law”.

> Would the Supreme Court order the government to close?

Yes, the Supreme Court would very likely order the executive branch to stop expending non-appropriaed funds.

> But, assuming it doesn't, Congress can either accept it, or impeach and remove the President. Given removal of a President requires a two-thirds vote of the Senate, it probably wouldn't happen.

Maybe not right now, where Congress is dominated so much by partisanship over protection of institutional traditional, legal, and Constitutional power that you can imagine the President's party backing such a blatantly unconstitutional usurpation of Congressional authority. But that's sort of aberrant historically; most of the time, even the President’s party is keen to keep the executive out of legislative branch’s clear Constitutionally-reserved powers.

[njarboe]

Like Rome, it seems that over time the legislative body finds less and less to agree on and with that inaction, the executive slowly takes over the power vacuum.

[skissane]

> More to the point, it would violate an express prohibition in Art. I, Sec. 9 of the Constitution: “No money shall be drawn from the treasury, but in consequence of appropriations made by law”.

Well, you are right, I wasn't really thinking about the appropriations clause in my previous post. Although, a President could argue that Congress is violating (at least the spirit of) the Constitution by refusing to present an appropriations bill for signature, and that the President's action is forced by Congress' own dereliction of its constitutional duty. Furthermore, the President could argue that by applying pro rata last year's appropriation acts, the President is still appropriating "by law", just using a previous law faced with Congress' failure to pass a new one. If the President can present an interpretation of that clause by which keeping the government open is constitutional, then the President can insist they are not violating the Constitution, unless and until the Supreme Court says that the President's interpretation is wrong.

> Yes, the Supreme Court would very likely order the executive branch to stop expending non-appropriaed funds.

But how often have the Courts enforced the appropriations clause in the past? There seems to be very little case law. The Executive has violated it in the past (e.g. the Reagan administration violating the Boland Amendment) and the Judicial branch has tried its best to duck the issue (Sanchez-Espinoza v Reagan).

If the Supreme Court wants to stay out of it, they have the tools to do so – standing, the political question doctrine, etc. Whether they choose to do so or not may ultimately turn out to be a political rather than legal decision. If the Court has a Republican-apppointed majority, and a Republican President is refusing to shut down the government, the Court might decide to stay out of the matter, while they might decide differently if the President were a Democrat.

(Although in theory the Supreme Court is apolitical, in practice they sometimes appear to be motivated by political concerns, see e.g. Bush v. Gore, and also Roberts and the Affordable Care Act.)

[Godel_unicode]

We don't do monarchy in the United States. We believe in checks and balances, and limited power.

Edit: also, the power of the purse is a matter of constitutional law, not the antideficiency act. The supreme court would absolutely order the government to close. No Federal employee would follow executive orders to violate congressional authority.

[krapp]

>I don't know why Americans put up with that silly government shutdown nonsense.

Many Americans believe that government is useless at best, malicious at worst, and grossly incompetent either way, and that shutting it down would probably do more good than harm.

[SamReidHughes]

> In most countries that never happens.

That's because the U.S.A. has three parties that have to agree to a bill.

[Rebelgecko]

There's a state park by me that charges $40 or so (although you can hike in for free)