Posted on 03/24/2020 12:02:24 PM PDT by pnut22
Is there a real reason that McConnell can't or won't put the Corona virus bill to a vote on a line by line series of laws? Could the senate not vote on multiple bills, for instance one that only gets cash to people without any excess baggage attached?
Am I crazy?
The President may have to veto this obscenity.
#Porkulus II
I wonder the same thing. We cannot be held hostage by these greedy, socialist Dems. The flip side is I’m hoping McConnell and other GOP don’t just give up and give in to be done with it.
This bill is very scary and has things that will fundamentally change our system. Unemployment for four months at full pay? People who are not “insured” by unemployment insurance get it anyway? It’s insane.
Does POTUS still have Line Item Veto power?
The CR is the brainchild of Newt Gingrich back when he was butting heads with Bill Clinton.
True, the national debt grew even with the Appropriations Bills but they exploded after the CR became the norm.
If the Democrat Party wants the President to veto Porkulus II then it wants what is best for America — for the first time since before Woodrow Wilson.
No, he does not.
it’s an all or nothing process.
I agree, that, is what the Bolshies want. To blame Trump for them not being able to buy votes. He needs to veto this mess and make them come back with a clean bill. They will not, Trump will use the powers from other bills to do what he wants. By the time the election is over, they have a decision from the Supreme Court, and, the virus is gone, the Dow will be 35,000.
“Does POTUS still have Line Item Veto power?”
-
No president has ever had line item veto power.
Because McConnell couldn’t pass the Boeing or airline bailouts on a line-item basis.
Only the Congress has the power over the purse.
So no, the Senate cannot go line by line. The Senate can reject the bill and send back a bill with what they don't like, but that only means the House will reject that as written and makes changes they think are warranted, and back it goes to the Senate.
Once the bill hits the president's desk he has no authority to enact a line item veto. He either accepts it as it is or rejects it with a veto.
True enough but Boeing was going under long before the Corona virus. A few years back my husband and I came into a bit of fun money. We each chose a stock. He chose Boeing and I chose Walmart. For a couple of years his skyrocketed and Walmart turtled up. Luckily he sold off half his shares while it was still high.
Actually the senate is using a “shell” bill for this. They take a house bill and void everything in it to create a shell. Then they write their own bill.
No. Clinton had it briefly until courts said it was unconstitutional.
Thanks for clarifying.
Not true. The line item veto act was passed and signed into law by President Bill Clinton on April 9, 1996.
Judge Thomas Hogan of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia declared the law unconstitutional on February 12, 1998. This ruling was subsequently affirmed on June 25, 1998 by a 6–3 decision of the Supreme Court of the United States.
I think the problem is always senate rules. Need 60 votes to close debate. McConnell has been reluctant to change the rules, ie nuclear option (that could come back and bite us down the road).
With regard to spending bills that originate in the Senate:
The Constitution is unambiguous on the point: "All bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives" (Article 1, Section 7). Thus, I've listed the House's "original jurisdiction" over revenue bills (laws that affect taxes) as a check. The House, however, views this clause a little differently, taking it to mean not only taxation bills but also spending bills.
The plain language of the clause would seem to contradict the House's opinion, but the House relies on historical precedent and contemporaneous writings to support its position. In Federalist 66, for example, Alexander Hamilton writes, "The exclusive privilege of originating money bills will belong to the House of Representatives." This phrase could easily be construed to include taxing and spending. The Supreme Court has ruled, however, that the Senate can initiate bills that create revenue, if the revenue is incidental and not directly a tax. Most recently, in US v Munoz-Flores (495 US 385 [1990]), the Court said, "Because the bill at issue here was not one for raising revenue, it could not have been passed in violation of the Origination Clause." The case cites Twin City v Nebeker (176 US 196 [1897]), where the court said that "revenue bills are those that levy taxes, in the strict sense of the word."
However, the House, it is explained, will return a spending bill originated in the Senate with a note reminding the Senate of the House's prerogative on these matters. The color of the paper allows this to be called "blue-slipping." Because the House sees this as a matter of some pride, the Senate is almost guaranteed not to have concurrence on any spending bill which originates in the Senate. This has created a de facto standard, despite my own contention (and that of the Senate) that it is not supported by the Constitution.
I think Line Item Veto was ruled unconstitutional in 1996.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.