Africa is a country?
This is a ch__ch. What's missing?
Posted on 03/05/2006 7:25:48 PM PST by santorumlite
Posted on Sun, Mar. 05, 2006 Bush to propose line-item veto legislation
WASHINGTON - President Bush plans to send proposed legislation to Congress on Monday that would allow him to control spending by vetoing specific items in larger bills, a Bush administration official said. The president, who has not vetoed any legislation during five years in office, asked Congress in his State of the Union address to give him line-item veto power. Bush plans to announce that the proposed bill is headed to Congress during his remarks at the morning swearing-in ceremony for the chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers, said the official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the announcement has not been made. Both Republican and Democratic presidents have sought the power to eliminate a single item in a spending or tax bill without killing the entire measure. President Clinton got that wish in 1996, when the new reform-minded Republican majority in the House helped pass a line-item veto law. Two years later, the Supreme Court declared the law unconstitutional because it violated the principle that Congress, and not the executive branch, holds the power of the purse.
At best it would still be 5-4 against, still needing stevens to step down.
If Bush had this power he could reject a lot of the earmarks like the bridge in alaska.
Clinton's two ultra liberal supreme court picks hurt bush bad here. But Clinton will never get any blame.
Not the Constitution.
Two years later, the Supreme Court declared the law unconstitutional because it violated the principle that Congress, and not the executive branch, holds the power of the purse.
Precisely.
Uhhhhhhhhhhhh, Bush has never vetoed a bill. Not even the unconstitutional blather of CFR.
Ha ha ha. What for? He has had plenty of opportunities to apply a veto and didn't use it. Why now? What a joke. Just an excuse by him for all the spending.
While Carter was our most incompetent President, Gerry Ford was the dumbest ... and he left John Paul Stevens as a lasting reminder.
The election of '76 - hold your nose and vote for Ford.
The horse is already out of the barn on spending. Neither party will take it seriously, nor should they. The responsibility is on congress to put forth reasonble legislation in the first place, or a president to veto the whole mess if it isn't.
You don't think Alito and Roberts would reject it?
You ask for strict constructionists, that's what you get.
Uh, is the White House even explaining how this is different from Clinton's attempt? Because otherwise, Bush is just asking for history to repeat itself.
How about a retroactive veto so Bush can roll back all the stupid stuff like the drug program that was not needed and the gazillion dollars to Africa and other countries?
At least Ford knew how to use the veto pen. Remember he told NYC to drop dead.
If he's not proposing an amendment, then he's just wasting time. What's the point?
One way that might get this thing to pass constitutional muster would be to give the President the power to line item veto something out of a bill and then send the bill directly back to congress for a fair up or down vote. No committee reviews, no chances for poison pills, no modifications by members of congress to kill the bill.
Give debate on the floor of each house for the modified bill (no filibusters) and then give the bill a stright up or down majority rules vote. After that send the bill back to the President to sign. Ultimately Congress would still have the final say on any spending and keep the balence of power in Congress for spending measures.
What something like this could do is bring some of the waistful spending out in the open and force politicians to explain some of these pork barrel projects (or let them die in the revote.)
His first MAJOR eff up.
"Two years later, the Supreme Court declared the law unconstitutional because it violated the principle that Congress, and not the executive branch, holds the power of the purse."
You want to know what the difference is now? My congressman(WI Paul Ryan, R), is actually one of the people involved with writing this new legislation. Our congressman actually told us about this new proposal yesterday at our county caucus.
This is what he told us.
The new law will allow the President to veto a particular line item, hand that line item back to the Congress for another vote, and then pass the rest of the original bill.
Remember the "Bridge to Nowhere"? The President could actually just veto that one line item and hand it back to the Congress and make them pass that particular line all by itself. Basically, the "Bridge to Nowhere" type items would be exposed to America, and then the Congress still makes the decision on whether on not the pass the individual line item. Congress would still be making the final decision on spending, as the Constitution requires, but all of the pork barrell projects would be exposed to America, and then that "Bridge to Nowhere" type items would have to pass a congressional vote on it's own, not piggybacked on the back of important legislation.
This time- the line item veto may actually work. Congress would still control spending, but the President can then expose these huge pork spending projects. Technically, the President is not really vetoing anything- he is just forcing congress to justify the pork projects to America and cast a new vote on a particular line item!
Sorry- Honcho, I did not see your post and posting something simular myself.
I found out about this new bill, just yesterday. I believe it can work this time. Right now, I will take anything that will expose the pork projects to the American people and get them stopped.
Africa is a country?
This is a ch__ch. What's missing?
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.