Bush wants line item veto

[Pens1566]

Link


What do you get for the president who already has everything???

If he doesn't like part of a bill, veto the whole thing. Wait, he won't veto anything. Something tells me he wouldn't use it like he says he wants too. Just another way around that pesky checks and balances thing.

 

[fallensight]

It would take an amendment to the constitution for a line item veto. The constitution says the president can either 'sign the bill or return it to congress'. And somehow I doubt either side wants a pres of the other side with line item power.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Line Item veto allows for more blackmail.

But is also allows the removal of "pork".

One man's pork is another man's bacon.

 

[DevilsAdvocate]

Every American President, regardless of party affiliation, has wanted the line item veto.

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

IIRC... Clinton got it and the SC took it away.

The LIV would change the face of politics in Washington as we know it. Personally I'd love to see the president have that power.

 

[conehead433]

With Bush as President there is no need for Congress. Just send them all home and let's quit paying them. We'll all pitch in and get him a Burger King crown to wear.

 

[theeedude]

Line item veto is unconstitutional. So called "strict constructionists" should know that the Constitution does not allow for the president to edit bills before signing them into law. If Congress wants to give Bush line item veto, they should just make each line an individual bill and let him sign or veto each smaller bill, instead of stuffing everything and the kitchen sink into one bill.

 

[OutHouse]

Originally posted by: DevilsAdvocate
Every American President, regardless of party affiliation, has wanted the line item veto.

yip, reagan was slavoring over it. the presidents want the same power as state governors.

 

[SarcasticDwarf]

Originally posted by: DevilsAdvocate
Every American President, regardless of party affiliation, has wanted the line item veto.

Yup, and that is part of the reason it should not exist. It would remove much of the power of the legislative branch and give it to the executive.

 

[sonoma1993]

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
Line Item veto allows for more blackmail.

But is also allows the removal of "pork".

One man's pork is another man's bacon.

I agree that line item veto allows for more blackmail. For instance if senator or rep from a state needed federal dollars to fund some school enhancements or somethen. If the president didnt like that senator or rep because they didnt support him on some issues. The president could deny that state the much needed money for the project.

 

[Lemon law]

The point is that the supreme court decided the line item veto is unconstitutional--a correct decision in MHO. Can we trust the the current supreme court to say the thing with a sligtly altered law?
Scares the hell out of me when I say I have zero faith in the current majority of idiots now sitting on the supreme court. GWB is like HIV---a gift that keeps giving and giving when you are clueless about
being infected---and with a penchant for screwing everyone in the country.

The only remaining hope I have is that GWB will screw up so badly so that we all will be left with a viseral distrust of absolute power being invested in one branch of government. But so far that hope is a few bridges too short.

 

[TheBDB]

It is the kind of power that you can see being used for good, but the threat of misuse is just too great. The Constitution isn't perfect, but it could be worse.

 

[compuwiz1]

Bush does not need more power. He has already proven he is reckless with power.

 

[Thump553]

Originally posted by: DevilsAdvocate
Every American President, regardless of party affiliation, has wanted the line item veto.

Quite true, at least in the last 20 years or so. But I can't think of any person holding the office of President who would be less trustworthy with such additional power as GWB. I can't. I mean he has already done things like greatly misrepresented the clear language of the Homeland Security Act to support his unilateral secret wiretaps, etc.

Before anyone jumps on the line veto bandwagon, let me tell you a true story of it's power. About 20 years ago when I lived in Wisconsin the governor used his line item power to delete the word "not" out of an act, thus totally changing it's meaning 180 degrees.

Pork could be hugely reduced by a few simple reforms of Congressional procedure. We don't need to grant a Caesar's power to do this.

 

[Worlocked]

Sure, let's give them a sceptor and crown at their innauguration as well. Let's dump the whole "president" thing too, King sounds so much more commanding.

Anyone who favors this is a traitor.

 

[ayabe]

Originally posted by: Worlocked
Sure, let's give them a sceptor and crown at their innauguration as well. Let's dump the whole "president" thing too, King sounds so much more commanding.

Anyone who favors this is a traitor.

I agree, but are signing statements any less constitutional, epsecially when you have used them 700+ times?

 

[CaptnKirk]

What do you get for the president who already has everything???

Penicillin? Viagra?

Originally posted by: Worlocked
Sure, let's give them a sceptor and crown at their innauguration as well. Let's dump the whole "president" thing too, King sounds so much more commanding.

Anyone who favors this is a traitor.

I'm thinking the proper title would be 'Supreme Emperor of the Galaxy', put him right up there where he belongs
right next to Ming the Merciless

 

[fitzov]

That would be like my wife taking my paycheck but never getting anything I wanted at the store.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Originally posted by: fitzov
That would be like my wife taking my paycheck but never getting anything I wanted at the store.

I see I'm not the only one with that problem . . .

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc

Originally posted by: fitzov
That would be like my wife taking my paycheck but never getting anything I wanted at the store.

I see I'm not the only one with that problem . . .

You have simply been poorly trained. Think! "What she wants is what you want." See, your problem was not a real problem.

 

[zendari]

Funny how liberals didn't mind it when Clinton had this power.

 

[kage69]

Funny how liberals didn't mind it when Clinton had this power.

Funny how many times you been proven wrong and ignorant, yet continue to post here.




The line-item veto has too much potential for abuse I think, so it should go without saying a president who already abuses his power shouldn't be allowed to have it. "Checks and balances" has already been cornholed enough, let's not enhance it's degradation.

 

[zendari]

Originally posted by: kage69

Funny how liberals didn't mind it when Clinton had this power.

The line-item veto has too much potential for abuse I think, so it should go without saying a president who already abuses his power shouldn't be allowed to have it.

How many countless times did Clinton abuse this power?

 

[kage69]

How many countless times did Clinton abuse this power?

Make a thread about it; I might indulge you if I feel like wasting time on mindless reactionaries.

 

[Zebo]

I like Line item veto. Way congress "packages" dire needs which president must sign with pork, like bridges to nowhere has been a huge problem for 30+ years and has lead to the explosion of debt and government. The congress knows president will take the blame too for anything he signs but he really has no choice. In essence packaging relieves congress of political fallout and responsibility and it all falls on the president.