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

To: mrsmith
Yes, there is ~ didn't you catch that deal where Congress would have to "veto" the President's action?

Congress does not have the authority to pass a law the defers subsequent legislative action to the action of the Executive.

The Supreme Court has ruled on the matter numerous times.

The constitution is what it is and says what it says it is ~ and there's a procedure in there on how LAWS ARE PASSED.

That's the one you have to follow. Extra constitutional trick bags are not authorized.

Now maybe you want to believe they are, but they're not.

80 posted on 07/14/2011 8:10:10 PM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies ]


To: muawiyah

The final bill will not defer subsequent legislative action to the action of the Executive.

Reid and Schumer are still writing it. See what comes out.

Even if it were as McConnell described, it will be severable.


81 posted on 07/14/2011 8:15:38 PM PDT by mrsmith
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies ]

To: muawiyah

Most of those who voted Republican in 2010 wanted the House to reduce government spending. Nothing that you have posted, or that is in McConnell’s proposal, enables the House to use its appropriations power to reduce expenditures. It can force the Administration to take politically embarrassing positions. It can, if your summary of precedent is correct, fail to fund programs. But it cannot do what the voters have asked Republican congressmen to do: negotiate a reduced budget with the Administration using their power of the purse as leverage.


83 posted on 07/14/2011 8:28:52 PM PDT by Praxeologue
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies ]

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