cme1201
Junior Associate
Tennis Elbow, Jock Itch, and Athletes Foot, every man has a sports life!
Joined: Apr 6, 2011 13:55:07 GMT -5
Posts: 5,503
|
Post by cme1201 on Feb 9, 2012 9:03:41 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Savoir Faire-Demogague in NJ on Feb 9, 2012 9:31:32 GMT -5
Stil must go in front of Congress for a second vote.
|
|
|
Post by Mkitty is pro kitty on Feb 9, 2012 9:36:05 GMT -5
Will Obama veto it?
|
|
|
Post by Savoir Faire-Demogague in NJ on Feb 9, 2012 9:38:54 GMT -5
|
|
rockon
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 8:49:55 GMT -5
Posts: 2,384
|
Post by rockon on Feb 9, 2012 9:52:33 GMT -5
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?
|
|
|
Post by Savoir Faire-Demogague in NJ on Feb 9, 2012 10:19:16 GMT -5
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
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Feb 9, 2012 10:39:32 GMT -5
i take it this is a more limited version of the power that was struck down by the SCOTUS in the 90's?
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,515
Member is Online
|
Post by billisonboard on Feb 9, 2012 10:53:07 GMT -5
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
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 27, 2010 23:55:19 GMT -5
Posts: 3,306
|
Post by fairlycrazy23 on Feb 9, 2012 12:42:23 GMT -5
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
Senior Associate
Joined: Aug 15, 2011 15:39:24 GMT -5
Posts: 19,892
|
Post by Sum Dum Gai on Feb 9, 2012 15:11:36 GMT -5
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
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 27, 2010 23:55:19 GMT -5
Posts: 3,306
|
Post by fairlycrazy23 on Feb 9, 2012 15:16:38 GMT -5
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
Senior Associate
Joined: Aug 15, 2011 15:39:24 GMT -5
Posts: 19,892
|
Post by Sum Dum Gai on Feb 9, 2012 15:20:44 GMT -5
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
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 27, 2010 23:55:19 GMT -5
Posts: 3,306
|
Post by fairlycrazy23 on Feb 9, 2012 20:27:00 GMT -5
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
Junior Associate
If You Don't Stand Behind Our Troops, Feel Free to Stand in Front of Them.
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 14:56:05 GMT -5
Posts: 7,461
|
Post by floridayankee on Feb 10, 2012 9:52:50 GMT -5
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
Senior Associate
Once you kill a cow, you gotta make a burger
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 1:19:25 GMT -5
Posts: 10,931
|
Post by TD2K on Feb 10, 2012 12:08:08 GMT -5
Maybe he'll use his new veto power to veto the limited part
|
|
Sum Dum Gai
Senior Associate
Joined: Aug 15, 2011 15:39:24 GMT -5
Posts: 19,892
|
Post by Sum Dum Gai on Feb 10, 2012 12:20:47 GMT -5
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
Junior Associate
Tennis Elbow, Jock Itch, and Athletes Foot, every man has a sports life!
Joined: Apr 6, 2011 13:55:07 GMT -5
Posts: 5,503
|
Post by cme1201 on Feb 10, 2012 13:07:18 GMT -5
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=cpyYes 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
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 27, 2010 23:55:19 GMT -5
Posts: 3,306
|
Post by fairlycrazy23 on Feb 10, 2012 13:52:40 GMT -5
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=cpyYes 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.
|
|