Lawmakers have had only several hours to spare twice in the past three weeks before beating a deadline by passing legislation that lets North Carolina state government keep spending while a permanent budget is worked out.

The usual argument is that without a so-called "continuing resolution" approved by legislators and signed by the governor, state government would grind to a halt - evoking extreme images of unguarded prisoners, empty classrooms and dry-docked ferries.

But what if the clock - and the state checkbook - really did run out?

Apparently nothing much right away, based on what little experience the state has on the subject. Citizens didn't notice and workers kept up their business when state government had no spending plan for about 36 hours in August 2005 while then-Gov. Mike Easley read the final budget before signing it into law.

But add a few days for invoices and employee time cards to pile up and it certainly could spawn a constitutional crisis, especially if a governor tries to spend money that hasn't been appropriated by the Legislature, law experts say.

"We don't have a lot of history in this area," said James Drennan, professor at the School of Government at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and expert on the state constitution.

The question yet to be answered substantially in court, according to Drennan, is "what kind of inherent power does the governor have to keep the state running in an emergency?"

The two-year budget expires June 30 in odd-numbered years such as 2009, so come July 1 there was no authority for Gov. Beverly Perdue and state agencies to spend money without a new budget in place. The state constitution says no money can be taken from the state treasury unless the Legislature passes a law to allow it.

So legislators approved stopgap spending measures to appropriate more money so the governor could keep operating the government while negotiations continue. This year, legislators have passed two such bills. One approved June 30 extends spending authority through July 15. When that date approached without a final budget, lawmakers extended it until July 31.

Gerry Cohen, the Legislature's longtime bill drafting director, said he wasn't aware of a time when lawmakers didn't pass a budget extension before the old budget expired.

But government could be brought to a standstill in the event of protracted bickering between the legislative and executive branches or infighting over fiscal policy between a governor of one party and a Legislature led by another.

In New Jersey, an eight-day budget standoff in 2006 between New Jersey Gov. Jon Corzine and fellow Democrats in the Legislature led to a government shutdown that idled 100,000 state workers. Corzine signed an order closing state parks, driver's license offices and even the Atlantic City casinos because state casino inspectors were not paid.

North Carolina's governor surely would prevent the state's prisons from being unstaffed, keep the Highway Patrol on the state's highways and doctors and nurses treating patients in state hospitals.

"Any governor would certainly do whatever she would have to do to ensure the essential parts of state government would not immediately close down," said Andy Vanore, a retired deputy attorney general. "Certain things cannot be left undone for too long a period."

But barring the emergency powers the chief executive has in times of war or during a natural disaster, the constitution still says the governor can't spend money that wasn't already approved by the Legislature.

Cohen said that while correctional officers could feel compelled out of a sense of duty to work without a budget in place, they wouldn't be required to do so because there's no promise that they would be paid.

Through a spokesman, Perdue declined to comment last week whether she's considered her authority without a temporary spending measure in place because she had confidence the Legislature would keep government operating.

Easley pushed the envelope a few times when it came to challenging the Legislature's spending authority.

During July in 2002, 2005 and 2007, Easley signed executive orders he said allowed him to spend from $68 million to $114 million without legislative approval to hire teachers, intensify training for at-risk students and improve low-wealth school districts.

In each case, Easley said school districts couldn't wait until lawmakers completed a budget to prepare children for school, citing a long-running court decision that found the state hadn't done enough to educate poor students.

Legislative leaders grumbled about Easley's actions, saying it was the Legislature's job to appropriate funds, not his. But they never challenged him in court, and their final budget plans ultimately included what Easley had taken.

The issue's never been litigated in North Carolina," said Jim Johnson, former fiscal research director at the General Assembly.