- Joined
- Jul 20, 2005
- Messages
- 20,688
- Reaction score
- 7,320
- Location
- Washington, DC
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
I didn't even bother to read your example. You need to locate an example of Constitutional spending before you go off on a line-item hunt.
Fine. Let's say Congress is debating a military spending bill. Republicans want $2 billion for a missile launcher in the Ukraine. Democrats want $2 billion for the USS Mercy to set up shop off the coast of Yemen. Neither side likes the other side's idea, but they're willing to agree to it to get what they want.
The President then vetoes the half of the bill that the opposing party wanted.
Scarecrow Akhbar said:Maybe they should restrict their wishing to things the Constitution actually allows, and then the whole matter no longer has such importance.
There's an idea for the socialist to get indigestion over.
You keep avoiding the fact that a line-item veto wouldn't necessarily be limited to projects which YOU deem unconstitutional.
Scarecrow Akhbar said:Works for me. So you're saying a Line Item Veto would wind up with the Republicans not trading pork with the Democrats and the Democrats not trading pork with the Republicans.
I'm saying it would wind up with them not negotiating on anything at all, pork or otherwise.
Scarecrow Akhbar said:Well....gee by golly...."Hey, YO! We gots here twenty billion buckaroos for body armor and armored Hummers for the troops in Iraq, and over in this here quiet little corner of the bill, we gots a hundred thousand for Bob's library in I-da-Hoe!, a quarter million for Joe's Schmoo Farm in Alabamer, and another two billion scattered in tiny little lumps all over the country.
Sometimes pork is hard to find....like when you buy a can of "pork" and beans, you can't see but one peice of something that probably was a used football. In other cases it's not that hard to spot.
If you want to enshrine this in the Constitution, you've got to do better than that in defining exactly what you're talking about. I assume you don't want to insert language in your constitutional amendment specifically banning funding for Bob's library in I-da-Hoe?
Last edited: