Posted on 02/05/2006 7:26:56 AM PST by new yorker 77
You're pointing out exactly the point I was making. The power to do what you wish already exists and is vested in the Congress of the United States. They can exercise their power as they see fit. They do not have the ability to surrender that power, to the President or anyone else.
During discussion of the "nuclear option" for eliminating filibusters of judicial nominees, it was stated that the Senate could not change their rules except at the beginning of their session.
I pointed out that the Senate of the United States has an explicit power to make its own rules. That power is not limited to just the beginning of the Senate session. Their rule stating that the power is limited is unConstitutional and without any real effect. At any time a majority of Senators wish to change the Senate rules, they may do so.
Constitutional is as constitutional does. There is no constitutional basis for a line item veto.
If it is needed then amend the founding document. Hope and pray that the "conservative" justices will hold the constitutional line against all comers, liberal or otherwise.
The executive branch signs off on them. If it's bad law, VETO it.
George, that veto pen is somewhere in your desk, use the thing for once.
It is the peoples responsibility, not the president's job to hold our elected officials to control and limit what laws and regulations they pass, not the executive branch.
True, but absurd amounts of power have been delegated to regulatory agencies.
There are a number of things I'd like to see as constitutional amendments, but one that would be near the top of my list would be something to the effect of "Any delegation of legislative or rule-making authority shall be void upon the thirtieth day following the opening of the Congress following the one that passed it, unless reinstated by that new Congress."
In other words, basically an enforcement of the idea that a congress (batch of elected congresscritters) can limit its own authority, but such limitation shall not be binding upon future congresses. Defunding the EPA, NEA, or other such agency would not require 51+ or both houses plus presidential approval, but only 1/3 of either house with presidential approval or 50.0% of either house without.
It may seem that way only because most appropriation bills are always structured and voted on that way, but congress has from time to time held "single" votes (in each house) for the passing of more than one "bill" and when doing so, first voted one approval of a rule permitting the one vote for the package.
To meet constitutional muster (according to the latest SCOTUS ruling on it) appropriations bills would have to be subdivided, by each line item, as a set of bills - HR-06-671-1, HR-06-671-2, etc.. The chamber would then vote to accept the rule of voting the separate bills together and then vote once. That would permit the President to veto the separate bills/separate line items.
True, but congress can pass legislation, without getting approval from the states, whereas the state legislatures (2/3) must approve a constitutional amendment.
-------
It takes 2/3 of both houses of Congress and 3/4 of the state legislatures/ratification conventions to ratify a Constitutional amendment. The 2/3 is the number of state legislature required to convene a Constitutional Convention.
(Denny Crane: "I Don't Want To Socialize With A Pinko Liberal Democrat Commie. Say What You Like About Republicans. We Stick To Our Convictions. Even When We Know We're Dead Wrong.")
Fund one Department at a time.
L
I agree. Its Congress job to make the laws and the President's job to enforce them. If a line item veto is given to the President, it will endanger the Separation of powers. It is good to have a strong executive, but too much power leads to tyranny. Granting the President a line item veto will also give the President a heavy hand in negotiations with Congress. Congress would be afraid to say no to the President because the President could blackmail their pork barrel projects. That means that the President would become the Ultimate source of Patronage in Washington. For example, the President could say grant me more spending/authority or I will veto a project you want. If its a good law sign the whole thing, if its a bad law veto the whole thing.
Moot. Bush has never met a law or budget he didn't like.
sigh
We quickly forget how even the most humble man can be corrupted by power. History has proved that many times over
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.