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 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 47

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

  1. #21
    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
    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.
    You don't have a lot of experience out here, do you?

    Guess what? They're called "must sign" bills for a reason.

    Your little theoretical ivory tower shore is purty, though.

    Real politics, however, is all about power. And power is defined by who controls the money.

    And the Congress ultimately controls the money.

    You are aware of the reason there are so many restrictions on what Congress can do, aren't you? Yes, of course you are. Congress is the most dangerous of the three branches of government, is why.
    Last edited by Scarecrow Akhbar; 03-09-09 at 09:32 PM.

  2. #22
    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
    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.
    OH! You don't mean there won't be any compromises, you mean Congressman Ted won't agree to vote for Congressman Bob's bill to "Change the Decimal-Point with A Comma to Make Us Look As Dumb As the Europeans and Eliminate the Waste Involved In Putting That ,/. Button On The Calculator" unless the bill includes the provision that the Federal Government finance the soon to be needed Retirement Home For Outmoded ,/. Buttons in his district.

    "Compromise" used to be discussions on the MERITS of a bill, not horse-trading to exchange irrelevant pork items to get meritless bills passed.

    Compromise used to be "I think 45 is a good speed limit". "No, 80 is good, my constituents tell me". "Let's screw'em. Let's make it 55, even though the Constitution doesn't give us authority to set speed limits." "Okay".

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    If Congress is Republican-controlled and the White House is Democrat-controlled, then the parties will need to work together to pass legislation.
    "Work together". Doesn't that sound so much nicer than "selling out"? Makes you feel good when you can hide what's really going on in such palsy words, doesn't it?

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    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.
    Let's suppose that the trading is limited to matters of relevance to the bill, not bridges to nowhere.

    But let's pretend we're discusing the Highway Bill, always a favorite spot for boar hunting, right? A bridge to nowhere should be vetoed. Why pretend Congress, the mob of fools, is doing anything right? If the Alaskan delegation is certain such nonsense won't survive the President's veto, they'll be more likely to demand that everyone else's projects are sane, needed, and unporky.

    Sounds like a good thing, making the Congressmen uncertain that their stupid projects that waste my money might not make it through the process.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    Then the Democratic President vetoes everything that the Republicans wanted and keeps the rest.
    And the Republicans wisely refuse forever after to agree to Democrat pork in ANY bill whatsoever.

    And the next term when the Democrat president is replaced by an American, then the Democrats won't want to play the Porky Pig Game.

    How does the American taxpayer lose?

    They can't. It's a win!

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    Bam, suddenly no one ever wants to compromise on anything ever again.
    Nope.

    BAM. None of those asses wants to trade PORK again. They'll have to start discussing the merits of the bills.

    You have a problem with that?

  3. #23
    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
    "Work together". Doesn't that sound so much nicer than "selling out"? Makes you feel good when you can hide what's really going on in such palsy words, doesn't it?
    Ah, I sense yet another extremist...For some reason I remember you as being one of the more sensible conservatives prior to your hiatus. I can't imagine where I got that impression.

    So you're a member of the anyone-who-compromises-or-disagrees-with-me-on-anything-is-a-traitor camp? If that's the case, I probably shouldn't even waste my time debating you. But we'll see.

    Quote Originally Posted by Scarecrow Akhbar
    Let's suppose that the trading is limited to matters of relevance to the bill, not bridges to nowhere.
    Yes, let's. Let's suppose that the trading is limited to matters of relevance to the bill: Say that Congress is debating some education bill. The Democrats want $20 billion to give to the states to fund public schools. The Republicans aren't wild about the idea, but they want $10 billion to fund vouchers in failing school systems. The Democrats aren't wild about that, but since both are getting what they want and they can live with the compromise, we have an education bill that a majority of Congress likes. Then the President vetoes all the voucher provisions. Suddenly there are no more compromises.

    This is exactly why the President should not be entrusted with that kind of power. (And don't you DARE try to turn this into a discussion about whether or not YOU think the example I cited would be a good bill. It merely serves to illustrate a point.)

    Quote Originally Posted by Scarecrow Akhbar
    And the Republicans wisely refuse forever after to agree to Democrat pork in ANY bill whatsoever.
    Nope, they just refuse to work with the Democrats on any bill period. If they've been double-crossed by the President, why should they ever compromise again? It's just not worth the risk that the things the Republicans wanted would be stripped from the final bill.

    Quote Originally Posted by Scarecrow Akhbar
    And the next term when the Democrat president is replaced by an American, then the Democrats won't want to play the Porky Pig Game.

    How does the American taxpayer lose?

    They can't. It's a win!
    Nope, they'll work with the Republicans until the first time the Republican President strips away the Democratic provisions from a bill. And then they never work with him again. Or maybe they won't even wait that long...maybe they'll just ASSUME he'll double-cross them and not work with him from the start.

    Quote Originally Posted by Scarecrow Akhbar
    Nope.

    BAM. None of those asses wants to trade PORK again. They'll have to start discussing the merits of the bills.

    You have a problem with that?
    How exactly do you distinguish pork-barrel spending from the "merits of the bills," and how do you codify that into a constitutional amendment?
    Last edited by Kandahar; 03-09-09 at 10:11 PM.
    Are you coming to bed?
    I can't. This is important.
    What?
    Someone is WRONG on the internet! -XKCD

  4. #24
    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
    Ah, I sense yet another extremist...For some reason I remember you as being one of the more sensible conservatives prior to your hiatus. I can't imagine where I got that impression.
    I'm still sensible. Always have been. Not that I'm a "conservative". that term defies definition. I'm simply the incarnation of reason.

    Yes. I have to be an extremist. I mean, I said that if the Congress couldn't trade pork they couldn't compromise.

    No.

    Wait.

    That's what you said.

    I said if they couldn't trade pork they'd have to discuss matters more relevant to the bill at hand. Yeah. That's really extreme, isn't it? I mean, the nerve of me, expecting elected officials to do their jobs properly.


    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    So you're a member of the anyone-who-compromises-or-disagrees-with-me-on-anything-is-a-traitor camp?
    I don't go camping, not since that incident with the moose....never mind.

    You're the one saying they can't compromise, not me.

    I'm saying they shouldn't be trading my money to avoid compromising.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    If that's the case, I probably shouldn't even waste my time debating you. But we'll see.
    Actually, you shouldn't waste my time ranting at me if that's the best you're going to put up as an argument.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    Yes, let's. Let's suppose that the trading is limited to matters of relevance to the bill: Say that Congress is debating some education bill.
    Excellent.

    Federal spending for education is not allowed under Article 1, Section 8. Thomas Jefferson recognized this, requested the Congress introduce an Amendment to the Constitution making that authorization, the amendment was not introduced, the spending was not forthcoming.

    Bill violates the Constitution, automatic veto, without Line Item discussion.

    Passage of bill should be met with a challenge in the courts before any dollars are disbursed.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    This is exactly why the President should not be entrusted with that kind of power. (And don't you DARE try to turn this into a discussion about whether or not YOU think the example I cited would be a good bill. It merely serves to illustrate a point.)
    Dare?

    Who? Me?

    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    Nope, they just refuse to work with the Democrats on any bill period.
    Works for me. I stay well away from ponds that leeches in them, too.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    If they've been double-crossed by the President, why should they ever compromise again? It's just not worth the risk that the things the Republicans wanted would be stripped from the final bill.
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    Nope, they'll work with the Republicans until the first time the Republican President strips away the Democratic provisions from a bill. And then they never work with him again.
    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.

    How can the taxpayer lose?

    Stop! You're supposed to be arguing against the Line Item Veto, not supporting it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    Or maybe they won't even wait that long...maybe they'll just ASSUME he'll double-cross them and not work with him from the start.
    Even better.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    How exactly do you distinguish pork-barrel spending from the "merits of the bills," and how do you codify that into a constitutional amendment?
    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.

  5. #25
    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
    Sure could.

    Especially Obama.

    So?

    you could try looking at the real point.
    I am looking at the real point,this thing is a double edge sword. It is fine if the president is a member of your party and it is not fine if the president is not a member of your party. Your are missing the whole picture, the president will not use it to cut out just pork spending, he will use it to cut out spending for things that he does not want spending for. He may not even cut out any pork, he may leave it in there to bribe some members of his party to keep putting things in the bills he wants to sign.

    President- I want a dirt Museum in my home town
    One of the members of the president's party- I want a funding for the study of cow farts

    next bill-
    Line item veto 1- funding for the scientific study of the effects of methane gas impact on the environment emitted by domesticated farm animals. pass
    Line item veto 2- funding for modern art museum.pass


    Presidents don't get re-elected by being totally ignorant. Bush and Carter and Ford prove that.
    Politicians however know that voters have a short attention span and a short memory,what he is doing now will have no impact on him when he runs for reelection it won't even have any effect on the politicians who have midterm elections coming up. It probably won't even be a issue.


    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.
    The president can refuse to sign it until they give him a bill free of pork. He can tell the media that he refuses to sign any thing with pork he can explain to the public some of the hoopal that is in the bill that made him not want to sign it. It seems it is routine for any spending bill to be laced with pork,because as long as a president will sign a bill with pork in then that is what congress and senate are going to try to push. Presidents have refused to sign bills before,this should be no different.

    This is the real world, not the little fantasy lands the anarchist idealist children live in.
    I thought anarchist children and morons(an adult who is a anarchist) were against government,police and all that stuff? So anarchist have not relation to not wanting the president to have line veto power.
    Last edited by jamesrage; 03-09-09 at 11:07 PM.
    "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

  6. #26
    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
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Scarecrow Akhbar
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Scarecrow Akhbar
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Scarecrow Akhbar
    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 by Kandahar; 03-09-09 at 11:06 PM.
    Are you coming to bed?
    I can't. This is important.
    What?
    Someone is WRONG on the internet! -XKCD

  7. #27
    Tavern Bartender
    Constitutionalist
    American's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Virginia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:20 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    76,301

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

    It would have to be an amendment to the Constitution. The Republican Congress already tried giving it to Clinton, and I think it was struck down by the Supremes.
    "He who does not think himself worth saving from poverty and ignorance by his own efforts, will hardly be thought worth the efforts of anybody else." -- Frederick Douglass, Self-Made Men (1872)
    "Fly-over" country voted, and The Donald is now POTUS.

  8. #28
    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
    I am looking at the real point,this thing is a double edge sword. It is fine if the president is a member of your party and it is not fine if the president is not a member of your party.
    You must mean because you want your party to pass along all the pork it can to your pals.

    The reality is that your party is still getting all the pork it wants right now, no matter which party it is.

    That a president is going to have the means to end the other party's pork means one thing.....the party not in power is going to resist the dominant party's pork all the harder.

    I fail to see how this is a problem for anyone that wants to see a Constitutional federal government again.

    How do you think we get there from here if we don't start demanding the president have the tools to restrain the most unconstitutional branch of government?

    Quote Originally Posted by jamesrage View Post
    Your are missing the whole picture, the president will not use it to cut out just pork spending, he will use it to cut out spending for things that he does not want spending for.
    And you're deliberately ignoring the fact that the Congress can override vetos.

    Oh, gee.

    How's about them apples, dude?

    So much for your argument.

    Needed legislation gets passed and funded, pork dies.

    Can't have that, now can we. Oh, NO! We have to keep everything exactly as it is now because Congress is soooOOOO! wonderful that you could never imagine anything that would make it work that much better, right?

    Quote Originally Posted by jamesrage View Post
    He may not even cut out any pork, he may leave it in there to bribe some members of his party to keep putting things in the bills he wants to sign.
    Oh. So now your argument is that if the Prez had the line item veto, it's dangerous because he might not use it.

    Wellll, okay...

    [QUOTE=jamesrage;1057953439]President- I want a dirt Museum in my home town
    One of the members of the president's party- I want a funding for the study of cow farts

    next bill-
    Line item veto 1- funding for the scientific study of the effects of methane gas impact on the environment emitted by domesticated farm animals. pass
    Line item veto 2- funding for modern art museum.pass


    So? I can't recall anywhere in the Constitution where the study of cow farts or dirt is in the purview of the Congress as defined by Article 1, Section 8.

    You have read Art 1, Sect 8, have you?

    Quote Originally Posted by jamesrage View Post
    Politicians however know that voters have a short attention span and a short memory,what he is doing now will have no impact on him when he runs for reelection it won't even have any effect on the politicians who have midterm elections coming up. It probably won't even be a issue.
    Oh, that explains how Carter got re-elected. Bush I, too.

    It's up to the politician's opposition to make those issues plain when election time rolls around.

    Quote Originally Posted by jamesrage View Post
    The president can refuse to sign it until they give him a bill free of pork.
    Ah. So sad. So many people don't understand how things in the real world work.

    Quote Originally Posted by jamesrage View Post
    He can tell the media that he refuses to sign any thing with pork he can explain to the public some of the hoopal that is in the bill that made him not want to sign it.
    Yeah, that's worked so well in the past....not.

    Quote Originally Posted by jamesrage View Post
    It seems it is routine for any spending bill to be laced with pork,because as long as a president will sign a bill with pork in then that is what congress and senate are going to try to push. Presidents have refused to sign bills before,this should be no different.
    Right.

    Whatcha gonna say when the troops in the field don't get their ammo and and fuel and rations because the president and the Congress are playing chicken?

    Quote Originally Posted by jamesrage View Post
    I thought anarchist children and morons(an adult who is a anarchist) were against government,police and all that stuff? So anarchist have not relation to not wanting the president to have line veto power.
    Naw, anarchists are the most confused ignorant people out there. They say and do anything that sounds like it'll get them laid. Like, f'rinstance, saying the government is just perfectly dandy the way it is today.

  9. #29
    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
    You must mean because you want your party to pass along all the pork it can to your pals.

    The reality is that your party is still getting all the pork it wants right now, no matter which party it is.

    That a president is going to have the means to end the other party's pork means one thing.....the party not in power is going to resist the dominant party's pork all the harder.

    I fail to see how this is a problem for anyone that wants to see a Constitutional federal government again.

    How do you think we get there from here if we don't start demanding the president have the tools to restrain the most unconstitutional branch of government?
    Restraining unconstitutional acts is the domain of the Supreme Court, not the President. But regardless, you STILL have not addressed the obvious fact that a line-item veto would inevitably apply to more than just projects which YOU deem to be "pork."

    Your inability to define what exactly you're talking about when you say "pork" is a pretty strong argument AGAINST a constitutional amendment. Citing "Bob's library in I-da-hoe" simply doesn't cut it. You want to change the Constitution, you'd better have a damn good reason and be able to clearly enunciate what exactly you want to give the president the power to do.
    Last edited by Kandahar; 03-10-09 at 05:44 PM.
    Are you coming to bed?
    I can't. This is important.
    What?
    Someone is WRONG on the internet! -XKCD

  10. #30
    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 American View Post
    It would have to be an amendment to the Constitution. The Republican Congress already tried giving it to Clinton, and I think it was struck down by the Supremes.
    I didn't know a defunct jive band had that kind of power.

    And yeah, the OP said "amendment".

Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 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
  •