|
|
#11
06-25-2006, 06:32 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Line item veto?
Supreme Court Rules Line Item Veto Unconstitutional.
I knew I wasn't crazy, it doesn' thave the case name in the article, but there it is. I guess Bush thinks that his new supreme court nominees will tip the scales in his favor and reverse the earlier decision? (Rehnquist and Ginsburg both voted the law unconstitutional in the decision). 
|
|
#13
06-25-2006, 06:54 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Line item veto?
[ QUOTE ]
Personally I don't like Bush, and can probably count on one hand the things he has done that I agree with, but this is one of them. Congressmen from both parties have become so ridiculous with their pork barrel spending that something needs to be done. I doubt that this is the final answer to the problem, but it's definitely a start. [/ QUOTE ] The solution to this problem is obvious: switch to a national system of representation (a la most European countries) as opposed to a locality based system. If a congressperson represents the United States, instead of a small district, he can't very well pork barrel his way to re-election by providing tageted spending for that small district, can he?
|
|
#14
06-25-2006, 07:16 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Line item veto?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Personally I don't like Bush, and can probably count on one hand the things he has done that I agree with, but this is one of them. Congressmen from both parties have become so ridiculous with their pork barrel spending that something needs to be done. I doubt that this is the final answer to the problem, but it's definitely a start. [/ QUOTE ] The solution to this problem is obvious: switch to a national system of representation (a la most European countries) as opposed to a locality based system. If a congressperson represents the United States, instead of a small district, he can't very well pork barrel his way to re-election by providing tageted spending for that small district, can he? [/ QUOTE ] And roll back the country to colonial days. Whats worse, pork that can be defeated by a conscientious legislator, who then has to answer to his own constituents, or a system where New York, California and a handful of other states determine policy, the middle of the country can go fly a kite?
|
|
#15
06-25-2006, 08:09 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Line item veto?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] I don't see how it could do otherwise. The executive can't remake the legislation as he sees fit. [/ QUOTE ] Seriouosly, I really don't understand how they're even considering this, I was under the impression the Supreme Court had already ruled the line item veto unconstitutional. They'd need a constitutional amendment to re-instate it. [/ QUOTE ] They also ruled on abortion, yet the debate continues.
|
|
#16
06-25-2006, 08:41 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Line item veto?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Bush is calling for line item veto power which will allow him to cut wasteful government spending out of bills. [/ QUOTE ] If you think that's the only thing it will be used for, or even the primary thing, I've got some real estate you might be interested in. [/ QUOTE ] Granted, I don't trust Bush at all either. Give him power and he'll figure out the best way to abuse it. In this case, I don't know if cutting pork spending wouldn't be his primary reason. He doesn't have connections to most of these special interest groups. They contribute to pumping up the debt and he gets the backlash from it. He also wants to appeal to the fiscal conservatives who aren't supporting him because of his massive spending. Or maybe he just wants more power, I don't know. What I do know is I want to kick the crap out of every congressmen who spends millions of taxpayer dollars to save some endangered monkey in Africa or to research ways to stop pigs from farting.
|
|
#17
06-25-2006, 08:53 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Line item veto?
I hated line item back when it was originally passed and completely agreed with the Supreme Court when they ruled on it, but now, I'd like to see it get another shot because I don't see another way to strip out the earmarks and ridiculous spending items.
|
|
#18
06-25-2006, 08:53 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Line item veto?
[ QUOTE ]
Supreme Court Rules Line Item Veto Unconstitutional. I knew I wasn't crazy, it doesn' thave the case name in the article, but there it is. I guess Bush thinks that his new supreme court nominees will tip the scales in his favor and reverse the earlier decision? (Rehnquist and Ginsburg both voted the law unconstitutional in the decision). [/ QUOTE ] The case name is Clinton v. City of New York.
|
|
#19
06-25-2006, 09:30 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Line item veto?
[ QUOTE ]
but its the only way that I can see to stop the 11th hour pork added to a bill [/ QUOTE ] Another way could be the use of just a normal ole veto.
|
|
#20
06-26-2006, 12:49 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Line item veto?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Supreme Court Rules Line Item Veto Unconstitutional. I knew I wasn't crazy, it doesn' thave the case name in the article, but there it is. I guess Bush thinks that his new supreme court nominees will tip the scales in his favor and reverse the earlier decision? (Rehnquist and Ginsburg both voted the law unconstitutional in the decision). [/ QUOTE ] The case name is Clinton v. City of New York. [/ QUOTE ] shhhhh jman thought it was Republican legislation. I wanted to hear him whine some more then wake him up to the reality.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
