I think this is a setup perpetrated by the Republicans and a smart one, at that.
The Republicans don't think the Senate will act on this because they can't be sure that Obama will win re-election. That means that Reid will sit on this bill until after the election. The result is that the Republicans can point to the Senate Democrats as being obstructionists to a bill that their own President desires. This will do damage to the Democrats who are running for a Senate seat...increasing the possibility of the Republicans taking the Senate.
Isn't politics fun!!
I've always liked the line item veto. It calls attention to the ridiculous spending measures attached to important bills that urgently need to be passed. If more spending bills and laws were considered on their own merit it would stop a lot of stupdity in Congress.
Last edited by jamesrage; 02-10-12 at 09:52 AM.
"A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murder is less to fear"
Cicero Marcus Tullius
The ghost of Jack Kevorkian for President's Physician: 2016
Okay...even though I don't think this bill will ever cross the President's desk, here's my take:
The problem we have here is that Congress sends the President a bill that is a combination of stuff he approves of and stuff he doesn't. The President is put in a "damned if he signs, damned if he doesn't" position. That's the way it is.
I see the solution as the PEOPLE calling Congress to account for their actions. Perhaps the People should demand and vote for Congressmen who will not send the President poisoned bills. Perhaps the People should take a more conscious interest in what their Congressmen are doing.
At any rate, the President does not need...nor does he deserve...any powers that are not enumerated in the Constitution. No matter what Party that President is from.
Didn't the Supreme Court strike down the line item veto as unconstitutional?
Here's a Wikipedia link discusing the limited line item veto.
Frankly, I don't see a difference between "limited" and "full" line item veto except that the bill as "lined out" would have to go back to Congress for a vote. In that case, it's really no different from what the President already does when he vetos a bill except under the Constitutional mechanism he has to attach a statement to the vetoed bill explaining why he vetoed such in the first place where upon Congress gets to revote on the proposed legislation again and can over-right the President's veto.
To such, I wonder if Congress gets to vote down a bill containing such "pen and ink line-outs" and then revote on the original bill, thus, overriding a Presidential limited line item veto much as Art 1, Sect 7 calls for?
Confused? So am I. (Guess it's time to once again do my homework and find this limited line item veto bill and study up on it alittle.)
EDIT: Just noticed MaggieD's link above. Thanks!
Also, to Mycroft and jamesrage,
I think your posts #12, 14 and 16 are all spot on! You both rather articulated the problems with this limited line item veto pretty much as I see it - as both a political "Catch-22" for any President, but in particular for this incumbant, and a cluster F- as to its overall constitutionality on the grounds of encroachment once again on congressional enumerated powers.
Last edited by Objective Voice; 02-10-12 at 12:55 PM.
One of you will end up here next!
2001-2008: Dissent is the highest form of patriotism.
2009-2016: Dissent is the highest form of racism.
2017-? (Probably): Dissent is the highest form of misogyny.