Posted on 09/21/2011 6:51:31 AM PDT by rabscuttle385
Sen. Dan Coats, R-Ind., and three colleagues called Tuesday for the debt-reduction “supercommittee” to endorse a president’s authority to veto parts of the federal budget – a move that would appear to defy a Supreme Court ruling.
“While a line-item veto alone will not solve our problems, it is a good start to help rein in excessive government spending,” Coats said in a statement.
He was joined by Sens. John McCain, R-Ariz.; Thomas Carper, D-Del., and Mark Udall, D-Colo., in sending a letter recommending the line-item budget veto to the co-chairs of the 12-member House-Senate debt panel.
(Excerpt) Read more at journalgazette.net ...
Push for line-item veto AFTER 2012. Insert a “effective 2012” date if the Dem’s try to get it into this “Adminsitartion’s” hands.
BUT NOT WITH THIS FRAUD IN THE OVAL OFFICE. He is the most dangerous man to appear in the American Political Arena - EVER.
John McCain is a mental case.
Juan McStain, always wrong.
I’m writting my congressmen to vote no on line item veto. Am I right to say he could cross out everything Republicans want and keep what Democrats want? Is that the bottom line?
I’m writting my congressmen to vote no on line item veto. Am I right to say he could cross out everything Republicans want and keep what Democrats want? Is that the bottom line?
Can anyone answer my question?
-- George Santayana
Court Strikes Down Line-Item VetoWashington Post - June 26, 1998
The Supreme Court yesterday struck down the broad new line-item veto authority that Congress had given the president to cancel specific items in spending and tax bills.
In a 6 to 3 decision, the court held that the line-item veto law violates a constitutional requirement that legislation be passed by both houses of Congress and presented in its entirety to the president for signature or veto.
Passage of the legislation in 1996 and its implementation in 1997 climaxed more than a century of struggle by presidents for this new authority. It was a rare unilateral yielding of power by Congress to the chief executive, prompted by Congress's increasing concern over its own lack of fiscal discipline. President Clinton, who had line-item veto powers as governor of Arkansas, signed the bill with relish and moved quickly, although cautiously, to begin trimming spending bills.
But the judicial branch, looking to constitutional rather than political or fiscal priorities, took a far dimmer view of the power swap.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/longterm/supcourt/stories/wp062698.htm
Why do you think you must “compromise” with people who are doing things you know are wrong. So they will compromise with us? Won't happen and you know it. Didn't God give you wisdom? You don't do something that is wrong, you say no. Seems your heart is with the democrats; your “friends”. You were not put into power to make friends, but do what is right. --------------------------------------------------------- email sent to all: ========================================================= Please don't give Obama more power, he's already done enough damage. No line item veto. He has proved himself to be not trusted and is not responsible. Besides that the Supreme Court strick it down.
Court Strikes Down Line-Item Veto
Washington Post - June 26, 1998
The Supreme Court yesterday struck down the broad new line-item veto authority that Congress had given the president to cancel specific items in spending and tax bills.
Coats believes the Unnecessary Spending Act introduced in the Senate this year by McCain would alleviate the court’s concerns.
The legislation makes no mention of presidential vetoes and congressional veto override votes. Instead, it would let presidents make “rescission requests” on funding bills after they are passed. By requiring a simple majority in both houses to approve a rescission request before it becomes law, the bill “respects and preserves Congress’ constitutional responsibilities,” according to a description of the legislation.
So, it appears that this would be the new process:
- Legislation passes both houses;
- President makes "recission requests";
- If "Recission requests" are rejected, the bill goes to President as originally passed for either signature or veto;
- If "Recission requests" votes pass in House and Senate, bill is modified accordingly and sent to President for signature.
Seems a bit pointless to me, but knowing these snakes, there's probably a way to use the recission process to ADD new provisions. Or a plan to eventually so modify the law and incorporate that later.
More busy-work for congress and the senate.
Since they are doing this as a “rescission request” it’s more of a constitutional gray area. Prior to the Nixon Administration, presidents would routinely impound (not spend) money appropriated by the Congress.
The Supreme Court ruled it unconstitutional in the early ‘70’s. But given the make up of the Burger Court (which gave us Roe vs. Wade after all), I’m not sure it is truly unconstitutional.
The Congress can appropriate, but does the President actually HAVE to spend every cent appropriated? Or does the President have some leeway in spending appropriated funds?
I’d view it as a separation of powers issue.
However, a line item veto amendment would be the best option, because it would be a clear statement of authority instead of assumed because of the President’s position as Chief Executive.
As far as Obama using it is concerned, compared to what he has done already (spiking “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”, the politicized Department of Justice, a 700 billion dollar slush fund, and a foreign policy that makes Jimmy Carter look strong) frankly with a tool that can only restrain spending, he can’t do that much damage, relatively speaking.
It would, however, be a powerful tool for a conservative president, like a Palin or a Perry who faced a big spending congress in the future. If Reagan had had it, he could have cut his deficits in half, instead of having to cut deals with Tip O’Neill to get the military build up we needed at the time.
“Line item veto is a good idea. BUT NOT WITH THIS FRAUD IN THE OVAL OFFICE.”
My thoughts exactly, Zulu. I’ve often wished we’d vote that in or at least something that requires bills to be short and stand-alone, i.e., not contain ANY unrelated, tacked-on crap. Many times, because of political gamesmanship, a basically good bill will end up with bad add-ons, or vice versa - a basically bad bill will have one or more good (and sometimes critical) add-ons. Then, good legislators are either held hostage or forced to make a “Sophie’s Choice” decision (exactly what will come from this horrendous “super-committee” - higher taxes or major defense cuts). That’s why a person’s voting record needs to be researched, looking deeper into important bills - which will often show why he/she voted for or against it - rather than viewing a bill superficially as it’s named/labeled by the sponsors (or critics) of it. Add-ons “buried” within may tell the true story. At least a POTUS can “throw a bill back”, so to speak, telling Congress to rewrite/revise it if they want it signed into law.
“He is the most dangerous man to appear in the American Political Arena - EVER.”
Well, Woodrow Wilson was pretty evil and dangerous, but I agree that BHO holds first place, definitely in our lifetime. So yes, for the first time ever, I’m glad there isn’t a line item veto - not with this creature in our White House.
No good would come of this. Not with this President and this Senate. Once again, another example (of many) where BHO’s thumbing his nose at both the SCOTUS and the Constitution.
Also, why the hell is Juan McCain always the only Repub with the Dems? Does he like being the token, or just that he can boast how bipartisan he is, always willing to work with his “friends across the aisle”? (Barf)
Bravo to you, Linda, for doing that.
The thing about McCain, though (and his ilk), is that I don’t believe he’s naive or misguided. He doesn’t think what he does is wrong because his heart lies with the Dems and Libs. Hence the term RINO.
The only reason I think he, Graham, Luger, Murkowski, Snowe, etc., even run under that R flag is so they can corrupt and dilute the party.
(Now, in the case of Susan Collins, I DO think she’s just stupid and looks up to her BFF Olympia Snowe :-)
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.