Posted on 09/26/2005 1:09:14 PM PDT by .cnI redruM
Tell that to the Nevada Supreme Court who DID just that in recent memory.
The Senate agreed to the Line Item Veto Act of 1996 69-31, and it passed the House by unanimous consent.
No, but Amendments can be ignored. And Amendments can be struck down for being in conflict (or expediently perceived conflict) with other Amendments, as has been done at the State level by State Supreme Courts.
Also, Congress controls the purse strings. Any President that utilized a line item veto, Amendment or not, could see the White House operating budget slashed. No fancy dinners or chefs, no computer upgrades, etc. Of course, some Presidents could just head off to the Ranch, and run the Executive Branch from there :).
As I said, it's possible that a STATE constitutional amendment might conflict with the FEDERAL constitution. Courts DO have the ability to overturn them in that narrow situation.
Bush is well aware of that. Doesn't need education.
It's been rather hard to tell.
Before Kelo, I might be inclined to agree. Afterwards, I'm not so sure...
The issue there was school funding; the Nevada Constitution mandates two things: a 2/3 majority vote for revenue bills -and- adequate school funding. When the legislature couldn't get a budget passed that satisfied the courts, the Nevada Supreme Court declared that the 2/3 majority vote requirement was in conflict, thus unconstitutional (even though it was in the state constitution) and....
Article IV, Section 17 of the Minnesota State Constitution states:
Sec. 17. LAWS TO EMBRACE ONLY ONE SUBJECT. No law shall embrace more than one subject, which shall be expressed in its title.
So it can be done.
I was just thinking the other day about this one. Reagan (God rest his soul!) used to talk about the need for this continurally. It would be a VERY good thing. Congress could reduce spending without having to grow testicles.
From the Constiution of the Confederate States of America Section VII:
The President may approve any appropriation and disapprove any other appropriation in the same bill. In such case he shall, in signing the bill, designate the appropriations disapproved; and shall return a copy of such appropriations, with his objections, to the House in which the bill shall have originated; and the same proceedings shall then be had as in case of other bills disapproved by the President.
Sure, they could educate the President on that. And then perhaps he could educate you on the fact Congress will override his VETO.
I know a VETO would make a lot of conservatives "feel" good but its useless if it can't stick. And it can't stick because Congress a) likes their pork and b) some of the legislation they pridefully attach the pork to is intentionally attached to fundamentals like Defense to dare a blanket VETO on something essential like funding of the troops.
I'm not into feel good conservatisism. If I thought for one damn minute a VETO would stop some of their spending in the Congress, I'd campaign for him to do it. But I've come to the conclusion it's nothing but symbolism. And I'm not in this for symbolism.
Sticking up for values of restrained spending is hardly symbolism.
Vetoing a bill and then making Congress pay a political price for overriding it by whooping up outrage with the electorate would not be just symbolic.
Congress loaded up the Highway Bill with over five thousand earmarks because they knew they wouldn't have to pay a political price.
And now, when we are facing serious disaster costs, for the god-damned GOP Congressional leadership to NOT give up some pork is atrocious. And Bush should call them on it. It's against everything the GOP should be for.
I see the line-item veto more as a tool for a future president than a tool for the current one.
Bush is the only one who would pay a political price.
Being over-ridden by the Republican Congress would give the impression that he is a lame duck, and the MSM would hammer that message home.
RE: IN DEFENSE OF GOVERNING [Ramesh Ponnuru] Your correspondent mentions that highway bills are almost veto-proof. I thought that Reagan had vetoed one in 1987. So he did, for a number of reasons, including that it was $10 billion over budget. ("I haven't seen this much lard since I handed out blue ribbons at the Iowa State Fair.") But what I didn't know is that this was the only veto of a highway bill ever, and that Reagan lost the battle: his veto was overridden, even though he "begged" 13 Republican senators to switch. He had already been weakened by Iran-contra. Posted at 05:47 PM
http://corner.nationalreview.com/
Symbolic victory in using the VETO, in practicle terms what did Reagan win? Sure, fiscal conservatives gush. Great. What did he win besides their affection?
I want results, not symbolic motions with a pen. And, btw, I'm not saying he did it to be symbolic. I believe his intent was sincere. But I am saying he failed and that is a lesson learned.
Everyone says Reagan was the Great Communicator right? If he couldn't whip the public up why do people expect Bush can? because there are more Republicans in Congress? There may be more Republicans, but some of them are Liberals.
Politicians use pork to buy votes. No unknown secret there. Here's the untold truth. The American people want that pork. If they didn't, they'd throw it back in the faces of the politicians that bring it home. Oh, they'll whine about spending for other people but ask them to sacrifice and they'll pitch a fit.
You want a real revolution to stop the out of control spending? Then it needs to start in our homes, our towns and in our cities. It needs to start with our Mayors, our city councils. We need to start voting to send it back. To use it for something else like tax breaks or MAYBE, private accounts?
D.C. is not the power base of this country. That is the American people. The mistake fiscal conservatives make is in targeting D.C. for change. The only way fiscal responsibility becomes reality is from a grounds up community revolt, not from D.C. down.
This is why advance is being made in the Judiciary. The American people are screaming and demanding their representatives listen to them. They are tagging measures to respect marriage from a grassroots movement and succeeding in spite of political inaction. they are starting to target their communities and local governements over KELO. They are making their will known from the bottom up and it's starting to see results. Fiscal conservatism chose to target D.C. first, rather than the other way around, and that is why they are lagging behind their allies in other conservative movements.
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.