House votes to give Obama limited line-item veto

[cme1201]

news.yahoo.com/house-votes-obama-limited-line-item-veto-002106728.html

The House of Representatives voted to give President Barack Obama a limited line-item veto authority on Wednesday in a rare display of bipartisanship on bitterly divisive spending and budget issues.

The House voted 254-173, with 57 Democrats joining Republicans in favoring the bill, which allows the president to propose elimination of individual items in spending legislation and subject them to a separate, second vote by Congress.

254 - 57 = 197 Republicans voted to give the president veto power.

But its fate is unclear in the Democrat-controlled Senate, where a 60-vote majority is often needed. A Democratic Senate aide said there were currently no plans to advance a companion bill co-sponsored by Republican Senator John McCain and Democratic Senator Tom Carper that has support from both parties.

For all the talk of Republican obstructionism on bills when they leave the Hose of Representatives they seem dead on the Senate floor despite having both Dem's and Rep's supporting the bills.

[Savoir Faire-Demogague in NJ]

Stil must go in front of Congress for a second vote.

[Mkitty is pro kitty]

Will Obama veto it?

[Savoir Faire-Demogague in NJ]

Feb 9, 2012 9:36:05 GMT -5 Mkitty is pro kitty said:

Will Obama veto it?

[rockon]

If recent history is correct the Senate and the President will say the Republicans should have known that this bill was DOA and question why they would waste their time passing this bill. Shortly after the Senate will pass their own version of the bill written with something in it that they know the Republicans will not vote for then Obama will get up and declare them the party of no again for not agreeing to it. Shortly after the that normal posters will copy some link declaring the Congress the most worthless since our founding and the process will continue to repeat. Any wagers?

[Savoir Faire-Demogague in NJ]

Feb 9, 2012 9:52:33 GMT -5 rockon said:

If recent history is correct the Senate and the President will say the Republicans should have known that this bill was DOA and question why they would waste their time passing this bill. Shortly after the Senate will pass their own version of the bill written with something in it that they know the Republicans will not vote for then Obama will get up and declare them the party of no again for not agreeing to it. Shortly after the that normal posters will copy some link declaring the Congress the most worthless since our founding and the process will continue to repeat. Any wagers?

You giving odds?

[djAdvocate]

i take it this is a more limited version of the power that was struck down by the SCOTUS in the 90's?

[billisonboard]

I can see why Congress would like it. Pass a budget with all sorts of special projects in it. If the president vetoes one that benefits your district, say you tried and blame the president. It also would allow for lots of votes stopping the irresponsible projects that benefit other parts of the country to show how much you are protecting taxpayer dollars.

How about this radical concept: Congress not pass a budget with pork in it in the first place.

[fairlycrazy23]

Feb 9, 2012 10:53:07 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

I can see why Congress would like it. Pass a budget with all sorts of special projects in it. If the president vetoes one that benefits your district, say you tried and blame the president. It also would allow for lots of votes stopping the irresponsible projects that benefit other parts of the country to show how much you are protecting taxpayer dollars.

How about this radical concept: Congress not pass a budget with pork in it in the first place.

I agree.

I have never been in favor of a line item veto, it should be an all or nothing thing.

[Sum Dum Gai]

I have never been in favor of a line item veto, it should be an all or nothing thing.

Which means any single committee can kill any bill they want by attaching one ridiculous piece of pork to it that they know the president would never sign. Sounds like a damn fine way to run a country to me.

[fairlycrazy23]

Feb 9, 2012 15:11:36 GMT -5 Sum Dum Gai said:

I have never been in favor of a line item veto, it should be an all or nothing thing.

Which means any single committee can kill any bill they want by attaching one ridiculous piece of pork to it that they know the president would never sign. Sounds like a damn fine way to run a country to me.

If the congress approves that ridiculous piece of pork than yes.

[Sum Dum Gai]

If the congress approves that ridiculous piece of pork than yes.

When you attach it to the defense authorization bill while we've got troops fighting wars in two countries they really don't have a choice. Neither does the president. That's how you get bridges to nowhere built. If you try the same thing when we aren't at war, maybe it gets vetoed and sent back, but since they always wait until the last minute to pass anything, that delay really screws over the pentagon and the market. But you know, anything to protect the ability of one lone congressmen to bring home the bacon. God forbid we cut that shit out of the federal government, think of all the unemployed bridge to nowhere builders we'd create! They have families to food too!!!

[fairlycrazy23]

Feb 9, 2012 15:20:44 GMT -5 Sum Dum Gai said:

If the congress approves that ridiculous piece of pork than yes.

When you attach it to the defense authorization bill while we've got troops fighting wars in two countries they really don't have a choice. Neither does the president. That's how you get bridges to nowhere built. If you try the same thing when we aren't at war, maybe it gets vetoed and sent back, but since they always wait until the last minute to pass anything, that delay really screws over the pentagon and the market. But you know, anything to protect the ability of one lone congressmen to bring home the bacon. God forbid we cut that shit out of the federal government, think of all the unemployed bridge to nowhere builders we'd create! They have families to food too!!!

How does not having the line item veto protect one lone congressman? It doesn't, a bill sent the President is not from one lone Congressman it has been passed by both Houses of Congress.

Congress writes the laws and the President can give it an up or down vote, by allowing the President to approve just pieces of a law means that the President is in effect changing the law.

[floridayankee]

Even if it passes, it'll never stick. Line item veto has already been declared unconstitutional.

Line-item veto power is constitutionally questionable. In 1996, the GOP-controlled House gave line-item veto authority to President Bill Clinton, a Democrat. Clinton used it on dozens of items, but in 1998, on a 6-3 vote, the Supreme Court ruled that the law was unconstitutional, saying it violated the principle that Congress, and not the executive branch, holds the power of the purse.

www.kansascity.com/2012/02/10/3420610/mccaskill-introducing-line-item.html#storylink=cpy

[TD2K]

Feb 9, 2012 9:38:54 GMT -5 Savoir Faire-Demogague in NJ said:

Feb 9, 2012 9:36:05 GMT -5 Mkitty is pro kitty said:

Will Obama veto it?

Maybe he'll use his new veto power to veto the limited part

[Sum Dum Gai]

How does not having the line item veto protect one lone congressman? It doesn't, a bill sent the President is not from one lone Congressman it has been passed by both Houses of Congress.

And individual congressmen get to attach pork to the bill as it makes its way through the committees.

[cme1201]

Feb 10, 2012 9:52:50 GMT -5 floridayankee said:

Even if it passes, it'll never stick. Line item veto has already been declared unconstitutional.

Line-item veto power is constitutionally questionable. In 1996, the GOP-controlled House gave line-item veto authority to President Bill Clinton, a Democrat. Clinton used it on dozens of items, but in 1998, on a 6-3 vote, the Supreme Court ruled that the law was unconstitutional, saying it violated the principle that Congress, and not the executive branch, holds the power of the purse.

www.kansascity.com/2012/02/10/3420610/mccaskill-introducing-line-item.html#storylink=cpy

Yes that is why the vetoed Item would have to return to be debated on the floor. It would allow Congress to actually defend the pork they attach to spending bills that serve no purpose to said bill.

[fairlycrazy23]

Feb 10, 2012 13:07:18 GMT -5 cme1201 said:

Feb 10, 2012 9:52:50 GMT -5 floridayankee said:

Even if it passes, it'll never stick. Line item veto has already been declared unconstitutional.

Line-item veto power is constitutionally questionable. In 1996, the GOP-controlled House gave line-item veto authority to President Bill Clinton, a Democrat. Clinton used it on dozens of items, but in 1998, on a 6-3 vote, the Supreme Court ruled that the law was unconstitutional, saying it violated the principle that Congress, and not the executive branch, holds the power of the purse.

www.kansascity.com/2012/02/10/3420610/mccaskill-introducing-line-item.html#storylink=cpy

Yes that is why the vetoed Item would have to return to be debated on the floor. It would allow Congress to actually defend the pork they attach to spending bills that serve no purpose to said bill.

No, very bad idea, this gives far too much power to the executive branch.

It has already been debated and passed by both Houses of Congress , if a bill has something in it that the President doesn't like, he vetoes the entire bill and then Congress can either override his veto, or resubmit the entire bill without the item in question.

If you allow the President to remove sections of a bill, then you get laws enacted that where not the intent of The Congress.

If a President where to actually start to veto pork laden bills, maybe Congress would stop submitting them.