[GraniteStateConservative]

Do you recall Agenda Item 1 for the Contract With America in 1994? It included the line item veto-- something Ronaldus Maximus asked for and GHWB asked for. Every knowledgable person knew it was unconstitutional, yet conservatives cheered as it was signed into law in April of 1996-- knowingly crapping on the Constitution (as you'd characterize Bush's signing of CFR).

Though you sound like a libertarian who probably has written in Ron Paul's or Andre Marrou's name for every office you've cast a ballot for (if they weren't on the ballot) and so it may not apply to you, most of the conservatives here at FR were happily supporting unconstitutional legislation-- including worshipful supporters of the Great One who walked on water; made the lame leap; the dumb speak; and should be on Mount Rushmore.

Oh, and so you'll know how the story ends-- the SCOTUS did their job and struck it down. They'll do the same with this.

[Miss Marple]

That is the GREATEST response to these people that I have seen!! THANK YOU!!

Can I copy it? Please? I will quote you, of course!

[patriciaruth]

Every knowledgable person knew it was unconstitutional

Being in California, I didn't know it was unconstitutional, and neither did our former Governor, Ronald Reagan, who liked the line item veto when he was governor here and wanted that same power as President.

Should we go for a Constitutional Amendment and put line item veto in the Constitution? I always thought it was the only way to get the budget balanced, and pay off the national debt.

[jurisdog]

Do you recall Agenda Item 1 for the Contract With America in 1994? It included the line item veto-- something Ronaldus Maximus asked for and GHWB asked for.

As a kid growing up on news and political talk shows (thanks dad!) I was very aware of the line item veto issue. The only reason I personally liked the idea of it back then was because of the constant yearly games played by the Democrats in Congress. Send Reagan an 1100 page budget the night before the government runs out of money, and force him to sign or suffer a shut-down.

However, the more I thought about it, the more I realized, I liked it for another reason as well. In my opinion, most things that the federal House/Senate do are unnecessary. Many are unconstitutional. A line item veto simply undoes things. So, I figured, even in the hands of a president I didnt like, like Clinton for example, he would just be cutting stuff out of bills, which probably would be more good than bad. Still though, the idea of a line item veto in the wrong hands was a bit scary to me.

Every knowledgable person knew it was unconstitutional, yet conservatives cheered as it was signed into law in April of 1996-- knowingly crapping on the Constitution (as you'd characterize Bush's signing of CFR).

I would disagree. There was not clear constitutional precedent stating that a line item veto would violate the separations of powers. However, there is clear precedent that says free speechs includes money/political-speech. The unconstitutionality of the CFR is much clearer than that of a line-item veto in my opinion.

Though you sound like a libertarian who probably has written in Ron Paul's or Andre Marrou's name for every office you've cast a ballot for (if they weren't on the ballot) and so it may not apply to you,

LOL. Well, there are some things I agree with Libertarians about, but I would never vote for one over a Republican. However, like many conservatives I know, there are times I end up voting republican simply because its the lesser of two evils. In my opinion, our party has lost a lot of the principle-driven character it has shown in the past. Maybe thats because the power of the media, and the vote-buying power of the class-against-class demonrats is so strong that we have to cave in somewhat to win elections. I don't profess to know for sure. But it does make me sad.

most of the conservatives here at FR were happily supporting unconstitutional legislation-- including worshipful supporters of the Great One who walked on water; made the lame leap; the dumb speak; and should be on Mount Rushmore.

Are there other things you are calling unconstitutional besides line item veto? Im not sure I woudl agree that most people "knew" it was unconstitutional...

Oh, and so you'll know how the story ends-- the SCOTUS did their job and struck it down. They'll do the same with this.

Agreed. But, I have to say, deep inside I really really truly hope that President Bush realizes signing the bill was wrong, but that he made a political value judgment, and that he has a long term plan. Maybe, just maybe, he knows for 100% sure that it will get struck down, and he is trying to better the long-term position of the party by keeping poll numbers strong.

[Bobsat]

Our brilliant President is effectively exercising a "line-item" veto of the parts of the CFR that are unconstitutional, and he's using the SCOTUS to do it!

The SCOTUS isn't likely to deem the entire CFR law unconstitutional, but it is likely to void the parts that are. That's because it has a duty to interpret the intent of the Congress in accordance with the Constitution. That which can be implemented in concert with the Constitution, it must let stand so as to avoid usurping the powers of the Legislative Branch. What's left will be acceptable to GWB and to the rest of us.

Personally, I like the fact that individuals can contribute twice as much as before since those that can are far more likely to be conservative than not.

As for the unconstituional parts of the CFR, Congress will have to try again to come up with a Constitutional way to implement what they want. That "ain't gonna' happen" so we don't need to worry about it.

Rintense, thanks again for your hard and tireless work posting the daily dose threads. I'm sorry they've been hijacked and disrupted so much lately, but "this too shall pass."