Line item veto?

[Copernicus]

[ 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.

[jman220]

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why would you think that I thought it was republican legislation? I was aware it was during the Clinton era...

Hell, if you even read the article I linked its like the very first sentence.

And as for the current legislation, if you read the article in the OP, it talks about Bush's support for the legislation, which is all I ever addressed. I have as much a problem with Clinton having this power as I do with Bush, or any president, so I'm not sure what you're trying to get at.

[Oderec]

This is another example of Bush's attempt, with Cheney's encouragement, to expand the executive branch's power. I think, in theory, this would be a good idea. If they would just take out the excessive parts of a bill, I would be all for it. But with no oversight, I just don't trust these guys not to abuse it. Just veto it and send it back.

[Propertarian]

[ 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?

[Copernicus]

[ 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?

[Propertarian]

What in the world are you talking about? A national system of representation means one person=one vote still.

"New York, California, and a handful of other states" are not living entities; they have no importance except for in their effect on human beings, and cannot act without human beings. Those states will not be determining policy, therefore. The people in the United States will be determining policy.

The people in large states do not vote identically or in unison. Some people in New York will vote for one politican, and other people in New York will for another. All people in large states are not democrats, and all people in large states are not republicans. Not even close.

Think about this. In countries with a national system of representation, does everybody living in large cities vote for things to screw over those living in rural areas? Do large states get everything and smaller states get screwed, in reality?

Of course not. But, I should mention one thing that your post reminds me of: our cuurent system is not one person=one vote. This is because the 600,000 people who live in Wyoming get the same number of senators as the 50 million people living in California!!!! Each individual person in Wyoming has 85 times the representation that an individual in California does in this area, and there is nothing in our system to counteract this subversion of democratic principle.

A national system removes the current unfairness in our system and not the other way around.

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
What in the world are you talking about? A national system of representation means one person=one vote still.

"New York, California, and a handful of other states" are not living entities; they have no importance except for in their effect on human beings, and cannot act without human beings. Those states will not be determining policy, therefore. The people in the United States will be determining policy.

The people in large states do not vote identically or in unison. Some people in New York will vote for one politican, and other people in New York will for another. All people in large states are not democrats, and all people in large states are not republicans. Not even close.

Think about this. In countries with a national system of representation, does everybody living in large cities vote for things to screw over those living in rural areas? Do large states get everything and smaller states get screwed, in reality?

Of course not. But, I should mention one thing that your post reminds me of: our cuurent system is not one person=one vote. This is because the 600,000 people who live in Wyoming get the same number of senators as the 50 million people living in California!!!! Each individual person in Wyoming has 85 times the representation that an individual in California does in this area, and there is nothing in our system to counteract this subversion of democratic principle.

A national system removes the current unfairness in our system and not the other way around.

[/ QUOTE ]

wrong moorobot. The electoral college removes the unfairness and not the other way around at the exec. level. In the Senate Wyoming has the same representation, but in the House its proportional. It works very well.

[Ray Zee]

it gives too much power to the president. i
this has been proposed by a few of them in the past.
the only way to stop the pork spending that is breaking us is to have a rule that only one item is on a bill and anything that does not directly relate to that is not allowed to be attached. this wont pass as each member would see his special interest buddies and perks dissapear.

[adios]

I believe this issue came up during the Clinton administration:

Supreme Court Deletes Line-Item Veto

How is it different this time?

[irvman21]

[ QUOTE ]
I believe this issue came up during the Clinton administration:

Supreme Court Deletes Line-Item Veto

How is it different this time?

[/ QUOTE ]

It's different only because the recently appointed jusitices might decide differently than the retired judges did.