To veto or not to veto

Washington Times ^ | Wednesday, September 17, 2003 | House Editorial

[JohnHuang2]

Yesterday, the Senate voted down the Federal Communications Commission's new media ownership rules. With a vote of 55-40, the resolution sets to roll back industry deregulation passed in June. In reaction, FCC Chairman Michael Powell said the upper chamber's move "would bring no clarity to media regulation, only chaos." To undo the new rules, the stand-alone resolution would have to be passed by the House and then signed by the president, which seems unlikely, since House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Billy Tauzin supports the new rules and the White House has issued a veto threat against attempts to overturn the FCC's action. But if successful through another legislative means, disorder would result, because the changes are the product of a congressionally mandated review of the rules and replace practices rejected by federal courts. There is no way the FCC could craft new rules that would appease judicial mandates to deregulate and congressional efforts to regulate more.

[JohnHuang2]

Wednesday, September 17, 2003

Quote of the Day by Holden Magroin

[goldstategop]

Let's hope this is the first of a lot of vetoes to stick it to Nikita Dean who has charged the President with not standing up to Congress's tax and spend ways.

[glock rocks]

Let's hope this is the first of a lot of vetoes to stick it to Nikita Dean who has charged the President with not standing up to Congress's tax and spend ways.

Dean? Hell, let's hope this is the first of a lot of vetoes to stick it to a tax and spend Congress.