"Thanks for the preamble on the ESA and Child Safety Acts"
Your welcome.
"I don't see the trade-offs on signing the CFR."
Neither do I but he does. And that is the whole point. He thinks he is doing some thing that's great (like the nomination of Miers and CJ Roberts) but many conservatives don't agree. It is essential we let the Critters and Pres. know our displeasure and our reasons for objecting. I'm sure most of you have already taken it up with him and the Congress.
"Ludicrous? Odd choice of words. Try Constitutional. In any event, there was nothing salvagable in the CFR bill. All we need in campaign finance reform is complete disclosure."
That's what I'm afraid of. We would throw out every good bill that have the least bit of conflict with the Constitution. I don't want any more CFR, ESA, or CSA, where we are constantly forced to choose between the lesser of two evils. We need a new system that guarantees that portions repugnant to the Constitution can be removed yet not affect negatively Legislative checks. We may need another Ammendment.
If it is in conflict with the Constitution, it should be thrown out. It is like being a little bit pregnant.
We need a new system that guarantees that portions repugnant to the Constitution can be removed yet not affect negatively Legislative checks. We may need another Ammendment.
That's the only way it can be done.
Under the line-item veto law, P.L. 104-130, which took effect January 1, 1997, President Clinton became the first president empowered to veto specific spending or certain taxing provisions of legislation. The Constitution previously allowed a president to veto an entire bill only, perhaps containing many provisions of which he approved, in order to strike down one provision he opposed.
On June 26, 1998, the Supreme Court, in a 6-3 decision, struck down the line-item veto law, declaring it unconstitutional. In the case of Clinton v. City of New York, the Court held the law unconstitutional on grounds that it violates the presentment clause; in order to grant the President line item veto a constitutional amendment is needed (according to the majority opinion). On July 17, 1998, the Office of Management and Budget announced that funding would be released for the forty-plus cancellations made in 1997 under the Line Item Veto Act and not explicitly overturned previously.