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 4 of 5 FirstFirst ... 2345 LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 47

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

  1. #31
    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
    Restraining unconstitutional acts is the domain of the Supreme Court, not the President.
    Wrong.

    I guess you're like Obama, and don't know the Presidential Oath of Orifice.

    He swears to uphold the Constitution.

    Cain't do that if he's busy signing bills that clearly violate the Constitution into law.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    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."
    Sure I have.

    I've noticed a bazillion times where I said the Congress can override the vetos on these items.

    You've ignored that a bazillion times because you can't address it in any manner without revealing the partisan nature of your willing intransigient ignorance.

    Anyway, it's been asked, answered, asked, answered, asked, answered, asked, answered, asked, answered, asked, answered, asked, answered, asked, answered, and answered again until you've saturated the thread with boredom.

    Ain't said a thing to discount the needful validity of the Line Item Veto, but you just keep repeating refuted arguments.

    Got anything new to add, or is that your best shot?

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    Your inability to define what exactly you're talking about when you say "pork" is a pretty strong argument AGAINST a constitutional amendment.
    No. Everyone knows what pork is. It's pretty obvious.

    Also, it doesn't matter for the purposes of the Line Item Veto Amendment. The congress puts some item in a bill, that's either necessary or not, and the president eithe vetos it, or not. If it's vetoed, the congress gets to vote to override the veto.

    It's not complicated. It's simple enought that even a Democrat graduated from a Public School can understand it if he makes an effort to be honest.

    Well....okay, that would have to be an EXCEPTIONAL Democrat, most of whom can't understand why anyone would want that poor innocent little budget to be cut anywhere, except for that naaasssty defense budget.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    Citing "Bob's library in I-da-hoe" simply doesn't cut it.
    Worked for me.

    I don't waste a lot of time explaining why there's air. I figure if you need it you'll do you best to figure out what it is.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    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.
    Damn Good Reason #1: Two Trillion Dollars in Deficit spending in six months.

    Damn Good Reason #2: Thirty Straight Years of Congressional Refusal to limit spending to revenues (no, Clinton never had a "surplus", don't post that lie unless you like looking foolish and gullible). Congress refuses to fix the problem. If not Congress, who? Not the courts. Budget matters certainly don't belong there. Only one left is the Prez, dude.

    Damn Good Reason #3: Democrats oppose it. It HAS to be good for the country if the Democrats don't like it. (okay, that's not strictly true, but it's really really close to being an absolute.)

    Damn Good Reason #4: You can't come up with a good reason not to do it.

  2. #32
    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've noticed a bazillion times where I said the Congress can override the vetos on these items.
    Irrelevant, if the bill that the President signs into law is not the same bill that Congress approved. Perhaps Congress never would've voted for the President's version of that bill. I know it's hard to believe, but occasionally legislation is more than just a laundry list of goodies, and removing SOME of the provisions of the bill is worse than either passing it in full or not passing it at all.

    Congress can override vetoes WITHOUT a constitutional amendment. Of the ENTIRE bill.

    Quote Originally Posted by Scarecrow Akhbar
    You've ignored that a bazillion times because you can't address it in any manner without revealing the partisan nature of your willing intransigient ignorance.

    Anyway, it's been asked, answered, asked, answered, asked, answered, asked, answered, asked, answered, asked, answered, asked, answered, asked, answered, and answered again until you've saturated the thread with boredom.
    Nope, you continually ignore my example of, say, a compromise in a defense bill. Republicans want a missile launcher in the Ukraine, which Democrats don't want. Democrats want the USS Mercy in Yemen, which Republicans don't want. They agree to cooperate and everyone's happy. If the President has the power to veto the opposing party's half of the bill, then there is no incentive for them to ever cooperate on any legislation in the first place.

    Quote Originally Posted by Scarecrow Akhbar
    No. Everyone knows what pork is. It's pretty obvious.
    Unacceptable answer. Try again.

    Quote Originally Posted by Scarecrow Akhbar
    Also, it doesn't matter for the purposes of the Line Item Veto Amendment. The congress puts some item in a bill, that's either necessary or not, and the president eithe vetos it, or not. If it's vetoed, the congress gets to vote to override the veto.
    The Congress passes some bill that's either necessary or not, and the president either vetoes the bill or not. If it's vetoed, the Congress gets to vote to override the veto.


    Quote Originally Posted by Scarecrow Akhbar
    Damn Good Reason #1: Two Trillion Dollars in Deficit spending in six months.
    Two questions: 1) Do you believe that would not have been the case if George Bush and/or Barack Obama had had the line-item veto? 2) Are you really going to argue for a constitutional amendment because Congress recently did something that made you mad?

    Quote Originally Posted by Scarecrow Akhbar
    Damn Good Reason #2: Thirty Straight Years of Congressional Refusal to limit spending to revenues (no, Clinton never had a "surplus", don't post that lie unless you like looking foolish and gullible). Congress refuses to fix the problem. If not Congress, who? Not the courts. Budget matters certainly don't belong there. Only one left is the Prez, dude.
    That sounds like a good reason to pass a balanced budget amendment (at least with exceptions for major wars and major recessions). I fail to see how that is a good reason to pass a line-item veto amendment.

    Quote Originally Posted by Scarecrow Akhbar
    Damn Good Reason #3: Democrats oppose it. It HAS to be good for the country if the Democrats don't like it. (okay, that's not strictly true, but it's really really close to being an absolute.)

    Damn Good Reason #4: You can't come up with a good reason not to do it.
    Reasons #3 and #4 pretty much prove your point about you being the "embodiment of reason." How could I have ever doubted this?
    Last edited by Kandahar; 03-10-09 at 08:03 PM.
    Are you coming to bed?
    I can't. This is important.
    What?
    Someone is WRONG on the internet! -XKCD

  3. #33
    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
    Wrong.

    I guess you're like Obama, and don't know the Presidential Oath of Orifice.

    He swears to uphold the Constitution.

    Cain't do that if he's busy signing bills that clearly violate the Constitution into law.
    If Obama already right now signs pork loaded bills why would he stop? As far as I know there is no law that says Obama has to sign every bill that is on his desk.The only difference would be is that he can choose the pork he and spending for other things he wants.




    I've noticed a bazillion times where I said the Congress can override the vetos on these items.
    And I've notice that is has been said a bazillion times that if Obama was serious about not wanting pork then he can refuse to sign it until they give him a bill that does not have pork.

    Damn Good Reason #3: Democrats oppose it. It HAS to be good for the country if the Democrats don't like it. (okay, that's not strictly true, but it's really really close to being an absolute.)
    Yeah right,sure they oppose it.
    Amazing what you can find when you post a topic in other forums.

    Feingold, Ryan back presidential line item veto -- chicagotribune.com

    WASHINGTON - Democratic Sen. Russ Feingold and Republican Rep. Paul Ryan formed an unlikely partnership on Wednesday, coming together to push Congress to pass line item veto legislation.

    The legislation would give President Barack Obama the power to strike individual items from budget bills.

    The Wisconsin lawmakers joined Republican Sen. John McCain of Arizona at a press conference on Wednesday to introduce the legislation.

    "This bill is about the need to stop wasteful earmarks especially in this time of economic crisis," Feingold said. "... If Congress won't restrain itself the president should be able to try."

    McCain was a key backer of previous line item veto legislation. The Supreme Court struck it down in 1998, and previous efforts to pass it did not gain traction.

    Feingold, Ryan and McCain said Tuesday their bill was tweaked to make it constitutional. Under the legislation, Congress would be able to overrule line item vetoes with a simple majority vote in either chamber.

    The 1998 legislation did not require congressional approval for the president's line item vetoes to be enacted. McCain said the alterations would ensure the bill passed legal muster but still served as a useful tool in curbing spending.

    "If the bill were the law of the land, our president, President Obama, wouldn't have to choose between signing or vetoing this omnibus bill. He could clean it up," McCain said.



    Damn Good Reason #1: Two Trillion Dollars in Deficit spending in six months.

    Damn Good Reason #2: Thirty Straight Years of Congressional Refusal to limit spending to revenues (no, Clinton never had a "surplus", don't post that lie unless you like looking foolish and gullible). Congress refuses to fix the problem. If not Congress, who? Not the courts. Budget matters certainly don't belong there. Only one left is the Prez, dude.
    Line item veto would not stop absurd spending. The only spending it would stop would be that of the party he opposes.
    Last edited by jamesrage; 03-10-09 at 08:05 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

  4. #34
    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
    If Obama already right now signs pork loaded bills why would he stop?
    Not relevant.

    We all know Obama is a diseased puppet following the orders of corporate and intellengentsia masters.

    Even if Obama had the line item veto handy, he wouldn't be allowed to use it.

    No, the Line Item Veto is a tool an American citizen president can use.

    Quote Originally Posted by jamesrage View Post
    As far as I know there is no law that says Obama has to sign every bill that is on his desk.The only difference would be is that he can choose the pork he and spending for other things he wants.
    Nope.

    He could have chosen to not sign that trillion dollar pork bill, but he did.

    Certainly if a defense appropriations bill comes across his desk while we have troops in the field under fire, he'll refuse to sign that one.

    (Are you people for real?)

    Quote Originally Posted by jamesrage View Post
    And I've notice that is has been said a bazillion times that if Obama was serious about not wanting pork then he can refuse to sign it until they give him a bill that does not have pork.
    You can't even define a "bazillion".

    Quote Originally Posted by jamesrage View Post
    Feingold, Ryan back presidential line item veto -- chicagotribune.com

    WASHINGTON - Democratic Sen. Russ Feingold and Republican Rep. Paul Ryan formed an unlikely partnership on Wednesday, coming together to push Congress to pass line item veto legislation.
    That's just stupid and meaningless.

    The court has already ruled that Congress cannot pass legislation granting the President line item veto authority, that such authority must be awarded by a constitutional amendment.

    This legislation is nothing but empty legislation by has-been politicians facing the deep twilight of perpetual irrelevancy.

    Quote Originally Posted by jamesrage View Post
    Line item veto would not stop absurd spending. The only spending it would stop would be that of the party he opposes.
    Yeah, I already refuted that.

    Try reading the thread.

  5. #35
    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
    Not relevant.
    It is relevent because nothing is forcing him to sign pork loaded bills,why would he stop just because an ability to strike out spending he opposes?

    We all know Obama is a diseased puppet following the orders of corporate and intellengentsia masters.

    Even if Obama had the line item veto handy, he wouldn't be allowed to use it.

    No, the Line Item Veto is a tool an American citizen president can use.
    No a line item veto is just a means of giving the president more power,it will not reduce pork and other wasteful spending,it will only reduce spending he opposes.If he opposes funding for the military then he will veto funding for the military when it comes up in a bill, if he opposes border security then he will veto funding for it when it comes up for a bill, if he wants a giant statue of his ass and it comes up in a spending bill he will approve it.



    Don't me that load of horse **** of how politicians do not want to do things to jeopardize their political career,they do it all the time. They vote themselves pay raises,they give funding for fruitflies, they call residents in their hometown racist or rednecks,they try to sell this country out to illegals aliens and globalism, they falsely accuse marines of murder. And the number one reason why they get away with **** like this and continue to get reelected is because voters have a short memory and short attention span.


    A real solution would be to make these politicians read out loud every damn bill they write and every amendment they write to a bill and explain in laymans terms why they need or want this spending. Also require every politician to read these bills and explain out loud why they support or oppose the bill before signing them,perhaps this will cut down on dictionary size bills. With video and internet and these requirements politicians would very weary of adding pork and approving bills before they read them.


    Nope.

    He could have chosen to not sign that trillion dollar pork bill, but he did.

    Certainly if a defense appropriations bill comes across his desk while we have troops in the field under fire, he'll refuse to sign that one.

    (Are you people for real?)
    Again he can refuse to sign it and tell them to rewrite another one if he is dissatisfied with it. The president is not a mindless bill signing drone.


    You can't even define a "bazillion".

    An infinite number or a very large exaggerated number.



    That's just stupid and meaningless.
    How is it stupid and meaningless?You claimed democrats opposed a line item veto, I proved you wrong.

    The court has already ruled that Congress cannot pass legislation granting the President line item veto authority, that such authority must be awarded by a constitutional amendment.

    This legislation is nothing but empty legislation by has-been politicians facing the deep twilight of perpetual irrelevancy.
    This has nothing to do with your reason for opposing something

    "Damn Good Reason #3: Democrats oppose it."

    Yeah, I already refuted that.

    Try reading the thread.
    I did read the thread you didn't refute anything.
    "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. #36
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Whitewater, CO
    Last Seen
    04-05-16 @ 06:04 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    8,260
    Blog Entries
    1

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

    There used to be a line item veto. This power was taken from the President because it was viewed as a breach of the powers of the President according to the constitution.

    Basically, it gave the President a way to remove legislation as he saw fit and it left Congress with no way to prevent it. This is created a serious issue because it left the President with unchecked power to modify legislation.

    Despite the fact that Clinton used the line-item veto to prevent needless spending; the line-item veto would be devistating in the hands of a President like Geroge W. Bush or whomever the next neo-con is that gets into that office.

    The line-item veto is dangerous and creates a power vaccume at the highest levels of our government. It simply cannot be allowed.

  7. #37
    Frankernaut peepnklown's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    California
    Last Seen
    10-16-15 @ 04:01 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    607

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

    I agree with Ikari, No to the line-item-veto amendment and Yes to One Subject at a Time Act .
    'The whole universe is going to die!'

  8. #38
    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 Vader View Post
    There used to be a line item veto. This power was taken from the President because it was viewed as a breach of the powers of the President according to the constitution.
    An objection that doesn't exist with a line item veto AMENDMENT.

    Quote Originally Posted by Vader View Post
    Basically, it gave the President a way to remove legislation as he saw fit and it left Congress with no way to prevent it.
    Not true.

    Vetos can be overridden.

    Quote Originally Posted by Vader View Post
    Despite the fact that Clinton used the line-item veto to prevent needless spending; the line-item veto would be devistating in the hands of a President like Geroge W. Bush or whomever the next neo-con is that gets into that office.
    Yes, Bush was an incredible deficit hawk, wasn't he, always complaining about excessive unconstitutional spending and working ceaselessly to protect the American people from the unconstitutional depredations of congress.

    How awful.

    Quote Originally Posted by Vader View Post
    The line-item veto is dangerous and creates a power vaccume at the highest levels of our government. It simply cannot be allowed.
    You mean the Congress will simply refuse to vote to override any vetoed items they feel are essential?

    You mean that Congress can never have any restraints put on it at all?

  9. #39
    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 peepnklown View Post
    I agree with Ikari, No to the line-item-veto amendment and Yes to One Subject at a Time Act .
    Oh, sweet.

    Is "building an aircraft carrier" the same subject as "purchasing body armor" or the same subject at "building a tank"?

    Who gets to decide what the "one subject" is, the President? The House? The Senate?

    If the bill winds up with (gasp!) two subjects....what's the prez going to do, veto the secondary subject? Or ...gee just like today, we'll see fools saying he shouldn't sign the bill?

    You people are so naive.

    Why do you trust congress, when it's the Congress that passes the silly laws that ruin the country?

    ====
    OH! THE COURTS, those wonderful people gave us Abortion-on-Demand and Kelo v New London will be wonderful arbiters of what's "one subject" and what's not.

    So instead having an elected executive, the president, declare a particular entry in a bill is unacceptable and allowing the Congress to override that decision immediately, you people want unelected judges to wait years before reviewing a LAW and deciding which segments, all of which are now in effect, shall be de-certified in law. The COURTS will certainly bring elements of clarity and promptness never before experienced in the national discourse.

    Wonderful idea, that, insisting unelected lifetime judges join in with the legislative process and take over from that tricky elected president.
    Last edited by Scarecrow Akhbar; 03-11-09 at 03:37 PM.

  10. #40
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Whitewater, CO
    Last Seen
    04-05-16 @ 06:04 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    8,260
    Blog Entries
    1

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Scarecrow Akhbar View Post
    An objection that doesn't exist with a line item veto AMENDMENT.


    Not true.

    Vetos can be overridden.
    General vetos can be overidden with 2/3 vote by Congress. No such mechanism exists for the line item veto.

    Quote Originally Posted by Scarecrow Akhbar View Post

    You mean the Congress will simply refuse to vote to override any vetoed items they feel are essential?
    I mean ... there was a reason why the line item veto was removed from the President's hands.

    It was often used as a tool for partisan politicking. It gave the President too much power. The President could essentially remove parts of bills he disliked.

    This is unacceptable as it renders congress moot in terms of passing legislation.

    Quote Originally Posted by Scarecrow Akhbar View Post
    You mean that Congress can never have any restraints put on it at all?
    Congress has plenty of restraint on it. The President does as well ... now that he can no longer exercise the power of a line item veto.

Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst ... 2345 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
  •