Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Kirk calls for new controls on federal spending (RINO wants to give Obama line-item veto power)
AP ^ | 2010-09-03 | Chris Wills

Posted on 09/04/2010 7:09:06 PM PDT by rabscuttle385

U.S. Senate candidate Mark Kirk called for new measures Thursday to limit federal spending, including giving the president the power to veto specific programs.

The Illinois Republican also said he would back a constitutional amendment requiring a balanced budget and a “super-majority” vote before Congress could approve excess spending.

(Excerpt) Read more at sj-r.com ...


TOPICS: Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections; US: Illinois
KEYWORDS: diablo; il; markkirk; markkirktruthfile; mccain; rino; rinos4obama; senate
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-24 last
To: earlJam
How can you pass a law that applies only to presidents of your party and not the other one?

See: TARP, Economic "Stimulus" #1, GM/Chrysler Bailouts, Economic Stimulus #2 (announced today in Wisconsin.)

21 posted on 09/06/2010 1:34:32 PM PDT by usconservative (When The Ballot Box No Longer Counts, The Ammunition Box Does. (What's In Your Ammo Box?))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: earlJam; rabscuttle385; BillyBoy; fieldmarshaldj; AuH2ORepublican; onona; Clintonfatigued; ...

That is true.

And yes it is unconstitutional which is why it would take an amendment.

With a Leninist in the White House I’d rather the President have no powers at all but....


22 posted on 09/08/2010 3:54:31 AM PDT by Impy (DROP. OUT. MARK. KIRK.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Impy; rabscuttle385
RE :”And yes it is unconstitutional which is why it would take an amendment.

Rather than that gimmick that would give more power to the president I would rather see a balanced budget amendment with no exceptions for ‘emergencies’ and entitlements included.

23 posted on 09/08/2010 5:14:25 AM PDT by sickoflibs ("It's not the taxes, the redistribution is the federal spending=tax delayed")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Impy; fieldmarshaldj; Clintonfatigued; BillyBoy

Yes, a line-item veto is unconstitutional (been there, done that). Pat Moynihan was absolutely right when he warned his fellow Senators that the Constitution provides that after a bill passes Congress the president may veto “it” or sign “it,” not sign part of the bill into law and veto part of it. So for the president to have a line-item veto such as what many state governors have would require a constitutional amendment.

However, there is a growing movement in Congress (which President Obama has recently embraced) to provide the president with “enhanced rescission authority,” which would give the president 45 days after signing an appropriations bill into law to defund (at least temporarily) certain portions of it, and to send his cuts back to Congress as a new bill (which would be unamendable and not subject to filibuster) for a mandatory up-or-down vote within 25 days. http://www.ombwatch.org/node/11038


24 posted on 09/08/2010 6:44:01 AM PDT by AuH2ORepublican (If a politician won't protect innocent babies, what makes you think that he'll protect your rights?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-24 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson