View Poll Results: Pass a Line Item Veto Amendment to the US Constitution?

Voters
30. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes. Duh.

    22 73.33%
  • No. Congress is so reliable

    6 20.00%
  • I don't know. Thinking makes my brain hurt.

    2 6.67%
Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 47

Thread: How's about a Line-Item-Veto Amendment?

  1. #11
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    09-22-10 @ 04:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    11,430

    Re: How's about a Line-Item-Veto Amendment?

    Quote Originally Posted by ladilala View Post
    I don't know too much about LI-vetos so excuse my naivety in advance but:

    Does this mean, on an extremely loose understanding of this, that the president could do something like this:

    Anyone who doesn't have health care and makes under 50K a year qualifies for subsidized government health care.

    could be changed to:

    Anyone who doesn't have health qualifies for subsidized government health care program.

    Or would the president have to remove like the whole statue out. He can't just knick pick out certain words, right? Also, I thought that the president could only take out things that have been added after Congress voted on it, like during a compromise between the two branches of congress?
    No.

    A line item veto works like this:

    Defense Appropriations Bill 2025:

    Item 1) $25 gazillion for two new aerospace carrier spacecraft.
    Item 2) $1 bazillion for general's party.

    ...

    The president could veto Item 2 and leave Item 1 intact.

    If the Congress seriously thinks the generals should have a party, they can vote to override that one veto, and here's the key....without changing the wording that's already passed both House and Senate.

    The president can veto whole laws.

    The president can't re-write a word in them.

    This restores one of the checks the President has on the Congress, one they bypass by burying pork in essential, must-sign bills.

    The override provision permits the Congress to retain it's ability to say "---- you, mack" to the President when he tries to get in the way of people's real business.

  2. #12
    Sage
    jamesrage's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    A place where common sense exists
    Last Seen
    12-10-17 @ 09:23 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    31,067

    Re: How's about a Line-Item-Veto Amendment?

    Quote Originally Posted by Scarecrow Akhbar View Post
    No.

    A line item veto works like this:

    Defense Appropriations Bill 2025:

    Item 1) $25 gazillion for two new aerospace carrier spacecraft.
    Item 2) $1 bazillion for general's party.

    ...
    .
    Couldn't the president also say screw Item 1 and vote for Item 2?


    I think I like the idea of the president trashing the whole bill and telling them to make another bill without all the damn pork, if he is serious about cutting pork then that is what he should do.No one is putting a gun to his head forcing him to sign a pork laden bill and as far as I know there is no law saying he must sign every bill that reaches his desk.
    "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

  3. #13
    Sage
    jamesrage's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    A place where common sense exists
    Last Seen
    12-10-17 @ 09:23 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    31,067

    Re: How's about a Line-Item-Veto Amendment?

    Quote Originally Posted by Scarecrow Akhbar View Post
    Well, I'd suppose the line item veto would be applicable only to appropriations and expenditures, not other matters. I guess I didn't make that clear.
    What about something like this?

    Immigration reform bill

    line item 1- 70 million border fence vetoed
    line item 2- 100 million legal fees of illegals seeking legal status
    line item 3- 50 million to make all government forms and ballots bi-lingual
    line item 4- 80 million for more border agentsvetoed
    line item 5- 300 million for ice operationsvetoed
    line item 6- 150 million for hospital,utility and grocery bills of illegals
    "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

  4. #14
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    09-22-10 @ 04:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    11,430

    Re: How's about a Line-Item-Veto Amendment?

    Quote Originally Posted by Kernel Sanders View Post
    Line item vetos and signing statments clearly violate the intention of the Founding Fathers and I would not support any official status for them, far less a constitutional ammendment. By picking and choosing what lines of a bill will be passed and attaching arbitrary qualifications to bills that Congress has passed is horrifically open to abuse and can completely change the intent of a law. I would like for Obama to take a stand against both practices, but I'm not holding my breath
    The President is required to veto items that violate the Constitution. Fat chance of that, I know, especially with a Democrat in office, but he's supposed to.

    But what the hell is he supposed to do when Congress passes a bill that has to be signed, like a defense appropriations bill and there's items for fixing up the library in Jim Walsh's home town or putting in a new and importanly vital fishing boat ramp on some unheard of tributary to an unheard of tributary to the Chattanooga river in some Tennessee congressman's district?

    Shut the whole bill down?

    Is the American public supposed to expect that the Congress simply HAS TO HAVE unconstitutional spending to convince one another to support the bills they apparently lack the ability to demonstrate any merit for except as a vehicle to spend money in the other guy's district?

    A line-item veto forces an end to the practice of log-rolling and pork.

  5. #15
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    09-22-10 @ 04:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    11,430

    Re: How's about a Line-Item-Veto Amendment?

    Quote Originally Posted by jamesrage View Post
    What about something like this?

    Immigration reform bill

    line item 1- 70 million border fence vetoed
    line item 2- 100 million legal fees of illegals seeking legal status
    line item 3- 50 million to make all government forms and ballots bi-lingual
    line item 4- 80 million for more border agentsvetoed
    line item 5- 300 million for ice operationsvetoed
    line item 6- 150 million for hospital,utility and grocery bills of illegals
    Welll.....that didn't happen.

    What has happened is that needed legislation is jammed up until the pork fat outweighs all the congressmen voting for the bill.

    That's the reall world.

    Let's see....the Congress votes for a hundred gigabucks for national defense, and ten megabucks for the admiral's golf course in Annapolis....and the Prez vetos the ten megabucks as waste...

    ...Congress has a vote and can't over ride the veto. Good.

    Congress appropriates valid funding for a needed fence, George Bush vetoed the fence...and the Americans in Congress restored funding by overriding the veto because the fence was necessary.

    Where's the problem?

    Forget the fact that presidential vetos can be overridden by the House and Senate?

    Don't know where you're getting your scare scenarios from. Last time I checked, no one in either of the major socialist party wings, Republomarxists and Demostalins, are doing or saying anything that's going to stop the presidents' continued persistent surrender to the invading hordes from the land of the tortilla.

    The real issue is that the budget is currently COMPLETELY OUT OF CONTROL.

    I certainly don't trust anyone as ignorant and foolish as Obama to veto anything that should be vetoed,...then again, Obama ain't gonna be president by the time any such amendment is ratified.

  6. #16
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    09-22-10 @ 04:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    11,430

    Re: How's about a Line-Item-Veto Amendment?

    Quote Originally Posted by jamesrage View Post
    Couldn't the president also say screw Item 1 and vote for Item 2?
    Sure could.

    Especially Obama.

    So?

    you could try looking at the real point.

    Presidents don't get re-elected by being totally ignorant. Bush and Carter and Ford prove that.

    Quote Originally Posted by jamesrage View Post
    I think I like the idea of the president trashing the whole bill and telling them to make another bill without all the damn pork, if he is serious about cutting pork then that is what he should do.No one is putting a gun to his head forcing him to sign a pork laden bill and as far as I know there is no law saying he must sign every bill that reaches his desk.
    don't know what planet you live on, but it's routine for military approrpiations bills, you know, the bills that, among other things, authorize the paychecks for those guys with the uniforms, to be decorated like Christmas trees with all sorts of completely unimaginable pork projects....because the President has to sign them. This is the real world, not the little fantasy lands the anarchist idealist children live in.

  7. #17
    Enemy Combatant
    Kandahar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Washington, DC
    Last Seen
    10-15-13 @ 08:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    20,688

    Re: How's about a Line-Item-Veto Amendment?

    Quote Originally Posted by Scarecrow Akhbar View Post
    The President is required to veto items that violate the Constitution. Fat chance of that, I know, especially with a Democrat in office, but he's supposed to.

    But what the hell is he supposed to do when Congress passes a bill that has to be signed, like a defense appropriations bill and there's items for fixing up the library in Jim Walsh's home town or putting in a new and importanly vital fishing boat ramp on some unheard of tributary to an unheard of tributary to the Chattanooga river in some Tennessee congressman's district?

    Shut the whole bill down?
    Welcome to politics.

    If the President signs the entire bill except for that fishing boat ramp, then he's just a made a new enemy. And if that defense appropriations bill passed by one vote, you can bet your ass that that Tennessee congressman will swing the other way next time around.

    There are ways to reduce the number of expenditures without giving the president broad, sweeping power to pick which parts of bills he likes. Congress didn't vote for a defense appropriations bill without that boat ramp. If there's too much wasteful spending, the president can veto the entire thing.

    Quote Originally Posted by Scarecrow Akhbar
    Is the American public supposed to expect that the Congress simply HAS TO HAVE unconstitutional spending to convince one another to support the bills they apparently lack the ability to demonstrate any merit for except as a vehicle to spend money in the other guy's district?

    A line-item veto forces an end to the practice of log-rolling and pork.
    It also forces an end to compromise, bipartisanship, and (laugh) a deliberative body solving our nation's problems together.
    Are you coming to bed?
    I can't. This is important.
    What?
    Someone is WRONG on the internet! -XKCD

  8. #18
    Enemy Combatant
    Kandahar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Washington, DC
    Last Seen
    10-15-13 @ 08:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    20,688

    Re: How's about a Line-Item-Veto Amendment?

    Quote Originally Posted by Scarecrow Akhbar View Post
    Welll.....that didn't happen.

    What has happened is that needed legislation is jammed up until the pork fat outweighs all the congressmen voting for the bill.

    That's the reall world.

    Let's see....the Congress votes for a hundred gigabucks for national defense, and ten megabucks for the admiral's golf course in Annapolis....and the Prez vetos the ten megabucks as waste...

    ...Congress has a vote and can't over ride the veto. Good.

    Congress appropriates valid funding for a needed fence, George Bush vetoed the fence...and the Americans in Congress restored funding by overriding the veto because the fence was necessary.

    Where's the problem?

    Forget the fact that presidential vetos can be overridden by the House and Senate?

    Don't know where you're getting your scare scenarios from. Last time I checked, no one in either of the major socialist party wings, Republomarxists and Demostalins, are doing or saying anything that's going to stop the presidents' continued persistent surrender to the invading hordes from the land of the tortilla.

    The real issue is that the budget is currently COMPLETELY OUT OF CONTROL.

    I certainly don't trust anyone as ignorant and foolish as Obama to veto anything that should be vetoed,...then again, Obama ain't gonna be president by the time any such amendment is ratified.
    The point is that there will no longer be any compromises, because no one can negotiate in good faith if the President has a line-item veto. If Congress is Republican-controlled and the White House is Democrat-controlled, then the parties will need to work together to pass legislation. So let's suppose that the Republicans in Congress give the Democrats something that they want in a bill, and the Democrats in Congress give the Republicans something that they want, so the bill passes. Then the Democratic President vetoes everything that the Republicans wanted and keeps the rest.

    Bam, suddenly no one ever wants to compromise on anything ever again.
    Last edited by Kandahar; 03-09-09 at 09:09 PM.
    Are you coming to bed?
    I can't. This is important.
    What?
    Someone is WRONG on the internet! -XKCD

  9. #19
    Enemy Combatant
    Kandahar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Washington, DC
    Last Seen
    10-15-13 @ 08:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    20,688

    Re: How's about a Line-Item-Veto Amendment?

    Quote Originally Posted by Scarecrow Akhbar View Post
    don't know what planet you live on, but it's routine for military approrpiations bills, you know, the bills that, among other things, authorize the paychecks for those guys with the uniforms, to be decorated like Christmas trees with all sorts of completely unimaginable pork projects....because the President has to sign them. This is the real world, not the little fantasy lands the anarchist idealist children live in.
    The President does NOT have to sign them. He can veto them and tell Congress that there's too much pork, if he wants to. And people like yourself who care so much about it can put pressure on him to do just that.
    Are you coming to bed?
    I can't. This is important.
    What?
    Someone is WRONG on the internet! -XKCD

  10. #20
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    09-22-10 @ 04:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    11,430

    Re: How's about a Line-Item-Veto Amendment?

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    Welcome to politics.
    Been here for a while.

    Amazing naivete you new comers show.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    If the President signs the entire bill except for that fishing boat ramp, then he's just a made a new enemy.
    Yes. Current experience, say the last sixty years, has shown that American liberties are best defended by Presidents who make the best golf buddies in the House and Senate, right?

    I don't elect presidents to be liked by the a-holes in the House and Senate. Not his job.

    His job is, among other things, to say "no" when the little boys in the House get rambunctious with my money.

    But I can see your argument.

    It's much better that the President just have his signature on a rubber stamp, like this last Bush did in his first term, than to say "no" to anyone, ever. After all, if he makes just one "enemy" by vetoing a single item that doesn't belong on the bill, just think of all the enemies he's going to make if he has to veto the whole bill. My, oh my, just think how he's going to be pestered by those bullies when he goes out to recess that day.

    It's so sad, the lack of spine this nation exhibits unabashedly these days.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    And if that defense appropriations bill passed by one vote, you can bet your ass that that Tennessee congressman will swing the other way next time around.
    Yeah, that's so important, isn't it? I mean, when was the last time a defense appropriations bill wasn't passed?

    Oh, that's right. They always get passed, for the same reason the president always signs them....because they're essential to the safety of the nation.

    Let's see....did Bush veto a defense bill last term? He may have, when the surrender monkeys tried putting published schedules for troop movements in it. But I dont think those stupid provisions were actually put in, so I don't believe Bush ever vetoed one of those bills.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    There are ways to reduce the number of expenditures without giving the president broad, sweeping power to pick which parts of bills he likes.
    Actually, it's a narrow, specifically defined power to counter the broad sweeping power of Congress to be completely irresponsible with my money, and yours.

    I mean, if you want them to build a bridge in Bumluck San Francisco, write them a personal check. Local state matters are not supposed to be part of the federal budget. Got back and read Article 1 Section 8 carefully.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    Congress didn't vote for a defense appropriations bill without that boat ramp. If there's too much wasteful spending, the president can veto the entire thing.
    Yeah, in your dreams he can.

    I see you didn't bother to define "too much".

    "Too much" = $1 in excess of what the Constitution allows under Article 1, Section 8.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    It also forces an end to compromise, bipartisanship, and (laugh) a deliberative body solving our nation's problems together.
    You mean the Congress would have to stop swapping spit and start discussing the merits of the bill itself?

    That's shocking! Imagine...a congressman finally doing what he's paid to do.

    Can't have that.

    All those special interests that feed them using your money would begin to starve.

Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •