Posted on 10/20/2007 1:49:17 PM PDT by no nau
Not line item veto. I mean something slightly different, although related. Line item veto was unconstitutional because of the presentment clause, not because of separation of powers doctrines.
I mean impoundment. There is no presentment clause problem with impoundment as there is with the line-item veto. Nixon did it in the 70s and there was a fight with Congress and I think it resulted in some legislation and a court battle, but I’ve been unsuccessful in tracking it down.
Show us how any of the other candidates drive their core values out of the original intent behind the Constitution. I very rarely hear them mention the Constitution at all. When they do, they’re often misreading it.
Thats because there was this really old, really important USSupCt case saying that the SupCt are the intrepreters of the constitution. It doesn’t matter what Ron Paul thinks. Or any president.
And if Ron Paul is an original intent kind of guy - he’s not letting soldiers quarter in my room!
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.