THE LINE-ITEM VETO RETURNS

NRO ^ | 25 Sep 05 | [Ramesh Ponnuru]

[.cnI redruM]

Senators Jim Talent (R., Mo.) and George Allen (R., Va.) are holding a press conference tomorrow announcing that they are going to introduce a constitutional amendment to create a line-item veto.

[.cnI redruM]

Here's a good one. What do you guys think would happen in a Roberts Court when PFAW, ACLU; DNC; and anyone else in the toxic alphabet soup of liberal intrest groups launch their obligatory suit against this in the 9th Circuit COurt?

[.cnI redruM]

Ping. DO you think it's doable?

[Southack]

You can't sue against the constitutionality of a Constitutional Amendment.

[dirtboy]

Senators Jim Talent (R., Mo.) and George Allen (R., Va.) are holding a press conference tomorrow announcing that they are going to introduce a constitutional amendment to create a line-item veto.

I wish they would instead educuate President Bush first that he CAN veto bills instead of just signing them. No point adding a line-item veto when the regular veto pen is gathering dust and cobwebs.

[Republican Red]

I was just going to post this.

Interesting! I wonder if it has a chance of passing. Timing is definitely good to get it passed.

[dirtboy]

You can't sue against the constitutionality of a Constitutional Amendment.

Unless you're in the 9th Circuit.

[Gipper08]

Good for Senators Allen and Talent!Still more is required of them on a daily basis,if we had stronger leadership in the Senate,We wouldn't need a line item veto!

[GrandEagle]

You can't sue against the constitutionality of a Constitutional Amendment.
YET

[HisKingdomWillAbolishSinDeath]

"I find no warrant for such an appropriation in the Constitution, and I do not believe that the power and the duty of the General Government ought to be extended to the relief of individual suffering which is in no manner properly related to the public service or benefit... The friendliness and charity of our countrymen can always be relied upon to relieve their fellow citizens in misfortune. This has been repeatedly and quite lately demonstrated. Federal aid in such cases encourages the expectation of paternal care on the part of the Government and weakens the sturdiness of our national character, while it prevents the indulgence among our people of that kindly sentiment and conduct which strengthens the bonds of a common brotherhood." —President Grover Cleveland

[IMRight]

What do you guys think would happen in a Roberts Court when PFAW, ACLU; DNC; and anyone else in the toxic alphabet soup of liberal intrest groups launch their obligatory suit against this in the 9th Circuit COurt?

Not a thing. Constitutional Amendmets aren't reviewable by the Supreme Court.

[GrandEagle]

Unless you're in the 9th Circuit circus.

[Dead Corpse]

Not to worry. Not only is it not reviewable by the Courts, but if we get another RINO like Bush in... he'll never veto anything to begin with.

[jbwbubba]

No point in vetoing bills that have the votes to override vetos like pretty much all spending bills do.

[kellynla]

Never happen! It would mean that someone would have to actually read the bills. LOL

[dirtboy]

No point in vetoing bills that have the votes to override vetos like pretty much all spending bills do.

I would be inclined to agree if Bush had ever vetoed a single stinkin' bill.

[big'ol_freeper]

Oh please do!

[szweig]

The President has no part in a Constitutional amendment. It is between the Congress and the state legislatures.

[GeorgeW23225]

But vetoing every bill with "pork" in it, would be tantamount to a filibuster. Absolutely, positively nothing would get done.

The line item veto is the way to go, and still get things accomplished.

[GrandEagle]

Constitutional Amendmets aren't reviewable by the Supreme Court.
That is in the traditional, time honored method of review. Remember, our court is now half made up of self-confessed traitors who's intent is to use other courts rulings as a basis of their findings. It would not surprise me at all if they tried to rule that any attempt by "we the people" to clip their wings a bit was "UNconstitutional".

GE

[b4its2late]

Sounds like a good idea to me. Since the courts already shot it down we need the ammendment.