• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Bush wants line item veto revived

no question the line-item veto gives the president more power..
however, whether it is a good thing or a bad thing depends on ones opinions of the president's views...
i think its good solely for the reason that more bills will be passed this way...
 
He wants to strike down items that won't benefit his business buddies and leave in the parts that do. 😉



Seriously, I hope he does get it and I hope he uses it to strike down pork-barrel spending and other wasteful spending items.
 
Why in the world is Bush pursuing the oddest legislature changes. First he wants to give a 2nd try to a failed constitutional amendment banning gay marriages. Now he wants to get a power back which the supreme court took away only 6 years ago.

Personally, it gives too much power to the President and it should not be returned.
 
i'm not aware exactly how well it worked under clinton.. what caused the supreme court to take it away after he was the first president granted the line-item veto?

edit: nevermind, i see it now..
On June 26, 1998, the Supreme Court, in a 6-3 decision, struck down the line-item veto law, declaring it unconstitutional. In the case of Clinton v. City of New York, the Court held the law unconstitutional on grounds that it violates the presentment clause; in order to grant the President line item veto a constitutional amendment is needed (according to the majority opinion). On July 17, 1998, the Office of Management and Budget announced that funding would be released for the forty-plus cancellations made in 1997 under the Line Item Veto Act and not explicitly overturned previously.
Click to expand...
 
Bush = Mad Retarded Redneck Monkey who wants to bomb all arabics cause he is racist waist of flesh. Conservative as can be western cowboy piece of crap!

IMO
 
Originally posted by: Shenkoa
Bush = Mad Retarded Redneck Monkey who wants to bomb all arabics cause he is racist waist of flesh. Conservative as can be western cowboy piece of crap!

IMO
Click to expand...

Does that have anything to do with the OP?

Nice troll.
 
Originally posted by: Pliablemoose
Originally posted by: GrGr
The Executive is already far too powerful.
Click to expand...


Translation=if Clinton/Kerry was in office I'd be all for it.
Click to expand...

Any prez with this is too powerful. Regardless of party lines, this isn't a good thing.
 
Originally posted by: Shenkoa
Bush = Mad Retarded Redneck Monkey who wants to bomb all arabics cause he is racist waist of flesh. Conservative as can be western cowboy piece of crap!

IMO
Click to expand...

IMO, you shouldn't call somebody else a "retarded" "monkey" if you don't know the difference between "waist" and "waste".
 
This would be a particularly dangerous revival given the strength of one party in all three branches of the federal government. It would meaningfully water down the power of the Democrats left in Congress IMO.
 
I'm trying to understand the line item veto in its details because from what I understand, when a law gets into the President's hands, he can veto several lines concerning spending and then pass it. Can the congress fight against these changes? And if fighting these changes is a difficult procedure, then it definitely grants the President too much power.
 
Originally posted by: cmdavid
no question the line-item veto gives the president more power..
however, whether it is a good thing or a bad thing depends on ones opinions of the president's views...
i think its good solely for the reason that more bills will be passed this way...
Click to expand...

Exactly...the laws are supposed to protect us from bad government just as much as they help good government. If a power is only good if you agree with the president, chances are that power doesn't belong in a democracy.
 
Originally posted by: DonVito
This would be a particularly dangerous revival given the strength of one party in all three branches of the federal government. It would meaningfully water down the power of the Democrats left in Congress IMO.
Click to expand...

Motivation, maybe? Democrats still have enough power to modify bills before voting on them. But if Bush could just veto the changes and pass what the Republicans wanted in the first place, that seems like too much power concentrated in one group.
 
Originally posted by: Pliablemoose
Originally posted by: GrGr
The Executive is already far too powerful.
Click to expand...


Translation=if Clinton/Kerry was in office I'd be all for it.
Click to expand...

Translation: I can't think for myself so automatically label someone "liberal" of a Kerry supporter if I percieve them to be critisizing Bush.

The executive IS far to powerfull. Many many federal powers need to be revoked and returned to the states.
 
Line item veto was supposed to let the president stop the piggy back pork barrel projects congress is funding that gets tacked on the end of otherwise good legislation.

It also stops congress from playing politics with the president, trying to make him look bad by forcing him to veto a whole bill that sounds good, by attaching some crappy porkers to it.

But thats of course what it was INTENDED for, sadly its not always used that way.
 
Originally posted by: rahvin
Originally posted by: Pliablemoose
Originally posted by: GrGr
The Executive is already far too powerful.
Click to expand...


Translation=if Clinton/Kerry was in office I'd be all for it.
Click to expand...

Translation: I can't think for myself so automatically label someone "liberal" of a Kerry supporter if I percieve them to be critisizing Bush.

The executive IS far to powerfull. Many many federal powers need to be revoked and returned to the states.
Click to expand...

I wholeheartedly agree.
 
Bad thing without question. I opposed it with Clinton and will oppose it now. It gives the Executive branch unconstitutional legislative powers, i.e. the power to write and re-write laws after they have left the Congress. This would be a serious imbalance to the checks-and-balances that are a crucial part of our government.
 
Originally posted by: Train
Line item veto was supposed to let the president stop the piggy back pork barrel projects congress is funding that gets tacked on the end of otherwise good legislation.

It also stops congress from playing politics with the president, trying to make him look bad by forcing him to veto a whole bill that sounds good, by attaching some crappy porkers to it.

But thats of course what it was INTENDED for, sadly its not always used that way.
Click to expand...

That sounds awfully familiar. Some story about a senator voting against a bill because he didn't like a specific portion but people made it look like he voted against a generally good bill. *cough* Anyways... no more election comments from me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top