That was the effect of his announcement Thursday, the day after the Senate and House overwhelming overrode his veto of the bill. Both bodies quickly turned their heads from his very valid concerns about the legislation, which started as an economic development measure and wound up loaded down with pet legislative projects, including some controversial measures that might never have passed on their own.

The governor is looking at two possible courses of action. He threw out the prospect of a legislative solution, which seems unlikely in view of this week's override. Better that he take his second alternative and ask the S.C. Supreme Court to decide whether the new law, which involves some major new state financing, meets the constitutional test.

There already are legislative rules that should have prevented what the governor called this "Christmas tree phenomenon." Both Senate and House rules require that amendments to legislation be relevant or germane. How can an amendment that gives all the state's 33 institutions of higher education the power of eminent domain possibly be considered relevant to the original intent of an economic development bill? Unfortunately, unless someone raises a point of order, the amendments, known as bobtails, stick.

But that's where the constitution comes in. It requires, for obvious good government reasons, that each act or law "relate to but one subject." That doesn't mean stretching economic development to include a study of a new law school, the creation of a new four-year college or a new college degree, new powers of eminent domain, a new convention center for Myrtle Beach, or new criteria for college scholarships. The intent of the constitutional provision is to ensure that legislative decisions on such issues go through the full deliberative process.

The governor noted during his press conference Thursday that he took an oath to uphold the state constitution and that he believes the new Life Sciences law may well violate that document. As he said, the courts are the long-established remedy for resolving differences of legal opinion between the executive and legislative branches.

Further, there have been previous efforts to resolve this problem legislatively. The state Chamber of Commerce dropped its legal challenge in 1986 after the new legislative leadership signed an agreement pledging an end to adding non-germane items to the state appropriations bill. But those leaders are no longer in office and legislative bobtailing has become more and more prevalent.

The governor is right to be concerned about the process, as should all taxpayers. No bill that couldn't otherwise get legislative approval should be allowed to pass as a rider, or at least, without deliberation. Worse yet, even though any number of legislative leaders acknowledged they didn't like what happened to the basic economic development bill, which the governor had advocated, they still went along with the add-ons.

As Charleston Rep. John Graham Altman told our reporter after the Sanford veto was overridden, "Mark (Sanford) gets to stand on principle; we get to stand on pork. And pork wins every time." Well, maybe not this time. Thanks to the governor, this stand on principle isn't over.