To: muawiyah
I propose this:
"The Senate shall receive appropriation bills passed by the House, to which it may not add to new or existing appropriations; however, the Senate may reject or reduce any specific appropriation made in the House bill. After the Senate passes the bill (after deleting or reducing objectionable appropriations), it shall go before the President, who may sign it, veto it, or veto certain enumerated appropriations and sign the remainder.
In any case that he may think proper, the President may choose not to spend any appropriations signed into law, but to retain the money in the federal Treasury and to inform Congress of his actions within nine months after signing the appropriation bill. By a two-thirds vote of both Houses, the Congress may demand that the President spend the money so returned in the manner originally appropriated.
56 posted on
05/30/2005 7:09:15 PM PDT by
dufekin
(United States of America: a judicial tyranny, not a federal republic)
To: dufekin
Too complex. Unenforceable. Creates unanticipated and unfathomable conflicts in the separate powers.
I still think single term Senate seats would do more good than anything fancy.
58 posted on
05/30/2005 7:10:47 PM PDT by
muawiyah
(q)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson