Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 10:46 pm Posts: 9617 Location: Medford, Oregon Gender: Male
Bush called for Congress to pass this last night, and I remember Clinton calling for it during his presidency as well. Are there any specifics on how this would work without abuse? I could see it being a valuable tool in cutting a lot of pork out of legislation, but it could also undermine the legislative branch if the president had such power. So it's a good idea/bad idea situation. I don't recall ever having a discussion about this here, so what are everyone's thoughts?
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 1:14 am Posts: 37778 Location: OmaGOD!!! Gender: Male
Completely unconstitutional.
The job of the president is to approve or reject legislation from congress. With the power of the line item veto, the president would be WRITING legislation.
If the president wants to have a line item veto, he should mark up bills with a red pen and send them back to congress to be rewritten.
_________________ Unfortunately, at the Dawning of the Age of Aquarius, the Flower Children jerked off and went back to sleep.
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 10:46 pm Posts: 9617 Location: Medford, Oregon Gender: Male
punkdavid wrote:
Completely unconstitutional.
The job of the president is to approve or reject legislation from congress. With the power of the line item veto, the president would be WRITING legislation.
If the president wants to have a line item veto, he should mark up bills with a red pen and send them back to congress to be rewritten.
I agree. I think we also need to demand more from our Congressional representatives instead of putting it on the president.
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 1:14 am Posts: 37778 Location: OmaGOD!!! Gender: Male
meatwad wrote:
punkdavid wrote:
Completely unconstitutional.
The job of the president is to approve or reject legislation from congress. With the power of the line item veto, the president would be WRITING legislation.
If the president wants to have a line item veto, he should mark up bills with a red pen and send them back to congress to be rewritten.
I agree. I think we also need to demand more from our Congressional representatives instead of putting it on the president.
Of course, congressional committee chairs "earmarking" money in bills after the full congress has already voted isn't much better than the president having a line item veto, if you think about it. It's all too much power over the details in the hands of too few.
_________________ Unfortunately, at the Dawning of the Age of Aquarius, the Flower Children jerked off and went back to sleep.
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 8:58 pm Posts: 54 Location: cleveland, ohio, USA
punkdavid wrote:
Completely unconstitutional.
The job of the president is to approve or reject legislation from congress. With the power of the line item veto, the president would be WRITING legislation.
If the president wants to have a line item veto, he should mark up bills with a red pen and send them back to congress to be rewritten.
clinton used it before it was ruled unconstitutional in clinton v. ny in 1998; the opinion broke down like this:
majority:
Stevens (authored opinion), then-Chief Rehnquist, Kennedy, Souter, Thomas, and Ginsburg.
dissent:
Scalia (authored (and then read it aloud)), O'Connor, and Breyer
understanding that it's impossible to know, i'd be interested to see how it'd come out w/ the current court / parties in power. i agree that it's completely unconstitutional.
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 1:14 am Posts: 37778 Location: OmaGOD!!! Gender: Male
class hero wrote:
punkdavid wrote:
Completely unconstitutional.
The job of the president is to approve or reject legislation from congress. With the power of the line item veto, the president would be WRITING legislation.
If the president wants to have a line item veto, he should mark up bills with a red pen and send them back to congress to be rewritten.
clinton used it before it was ruled unconstitutional in clinton v. ny in 1998; the opinion broke down like this:
majority:
Stevens (authored opinion), then-Chief Rehnquist, Kennedy, Souter, Thomas, and Ginsburg.
dissent:
Scalia (authored (and then read it aloud)), O'Connor, and Breyer
understanding that it's impossible to know, i'd be interested to see how it'd come out w/ the current court / parties in power. i agree that it's completely unconstitutional.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum
