WHO WILL WIN IN NOVEMBER?

mysteryman wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
mysteryman wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
mysteryman wrote:
Cyclo,
Do you support the "line item veto" for the President?

I'm in the middle on it. The Supreme Court didn't seem to support it, and it would certainly help gigantic earmarks from going through, but I'm not exactly sure it is neccessary - the president can just refuse to sign the bill, if he doesn't like what is in it.

Remember Reagan doing so?

Cycloptichorn

And therein lies the problem.
Congress has a bad habit of adding pork to a bill the President wants.
If the President says that he will sign a bill for increased funding for the VA,congress will add an amendment providing money to build a bridge to nowhere,or some other pork some congressman wants.

If the President refuses to sign the bill because of the added pork,he is accused of not funding the VA
If he signs the bill,he is accused of porkbarrel spending.

Either way,he gets the blame.

If the Pres had the power of "line item veto",he could redline the parts he didnt like and sign the rest.
One has to wonder how much wasteful spending would be curtailed if the President,of either party,had the power to do that.

Personally,I support the "line item veto".

It depends. Can the Prez veto non-monetary parts of bills which he doesn't like?

The Executive branch has a responsibility to explain to the citizens of America its' decisions just like the Congress does. If the prez feels that he is being held hostage by Congress, he needs to explain to the American people that he won't sign a pork-laden bill even if it does give money to the VA. This is how the system is supposed to work.

Cycloptichorn

The President cannot veto parts of a bill,if he could that would be the "line item veto".
He has to sign all of it or veto all of it,there is no inbetween.

I know how the system is supposed to work,but you know as well as I do that it doesnt work that way.
You have seen as well as I do that the President,of either party,can be and is held hostage by the press and the critics of the other party.

Just because the President explains his position,and does so reasonably and logically,does not mean that his message will get out.

The "line item veto" is the best way to go.

No no, what I'm asking is: can the president use the line-item veto to get rid of non-monetary parts of bills, in your opinion? Or should the line-item veto only apply to expenditures?

If the President, who enjoys unparalleled access to the media, can't get his point out, then that is a failure by him and his media team. It isn't a failure of the system itself. He has a responsibility to convince the voters that his ideas are correct, the same way that the Congress does. One of the reasons the GOP is in trouble, as you know, is because they haven't been able to do a good job explaining why they've increased spending and pork spending so much after promising to do the exact opposite in 1994.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Addendum to my previous post:

I say EVERYTHING Congress votes on should be in a separate bill and voted up or down by the legislators. That would stop them burying some offensive piece of legislation into a bill that is otherwise critical and necessary and would do great harm if the President vetoed it.

0 Replies

Quote:

Wouldn't it be wonderful if Orwell wasn't so right on target? Wouldn't it be wonderful if our legislators actually did have the very best interests of the American people as their #1 motive for their activities?

It can be this way if we can convince the nation to take a more active interest in politics. If there were more transparency, and people would place a greater interest on holding their leaders accountable than they did winning elections for their side, you would see a lot more of this.

One of the primary things standing in the way of this concept is the diviseness of partisan politics these days: when you seperate groups into distinct camps who are unwilling to give on social issues, you create blocks of people who would never vote to hold their own leaders responsible, because they will never support the social programs of the other side, ever, no matter what; a sure environment for corruption and inefficency, because both sides know they can count on the loyalist vote no matter what.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Cyclo said...

Quote:

No no, what I'm asking is: can the president use the line-item veto to get rid of non-monetary parts of bills, in your opinion? Or should the line-item veto only apply to expenditures?

If the President, who enjoys unparalleled access to the media, can't get his point out, then that is a failure by him and his media team. It isn't a failure of the system itself. He has a responsibility to convince the voters that his ideas are correct, the same way that the Congress does. One of the reasons the GOP is in trouble, as you know, is because they haven't been able to do a good job explaining why they've increased spending and pork spending so much after promising to do the exact opposite in 1994.

Cycloptichorn

IMHO,the President should be able to use the line item veto on ANY part of a bill that he doesnt like,monetary or not.

As for it being a failure of him or his mdeia team,That isnt entirely the case.

You know as well as I do that most people only get their news in 5 second sound bites.
So,depending on what sound bites are used or how they are reported,the President can be quoted waaay out of context,even though the quote reported is correct.
It has happened to every President since the beginning of the republic.

0 Replies

mysteryman wrote:

Cyclo said...

Quote:
No no, what I'm asking is: can the president use the line-item veto to get rid of non-monetary parts of bills, in your opinion? Or should the line-item veto only apply to expenditures?

If the President, who enjoys unparalleled access to the media, can't get his point out, then that is a failure by him and his media team. It isn't a failure of the system itself. He has a responsibility to convince the voters that his ideas are correct, the same way that the Congress does. One of the reasons the GOP is in trouble, as you know, is because they haven't been able to do a good job explaining why they've increased spending and pork spending so much after promising to do the exact opposite in 1994.

Cycloptichorn

IMHO,the President should be able to use the line item veto on ANY part of a bill that he doesnt like,monetary or not.

As for it being a failure of him or his mdeia team,That isnt entirely the case.

You know as well as I do that most people only get their news in 5 second sound bites.
So,depending on what sound bites are used or how they are reported,the President can be quoted waaay out of context,even though the quote reported is correct.
It has happened to every President since the beginning of the republic.

So what? Any politician can be quoted out of context. This doesn't remove the need for the President to explain his actions. If he can't engage Americans in a stronger fashion, it is his/her failing, not the system.

I don't agree with the notion that the President can just line-item veto anything he doesn't like, because there are parts of bills which are intended to limit the executive branch, and they shouldn't be able to be cut out if the prez. doesn't like them. For example, congress can authorize spending for war based upon the catch that the Prez has to say where it is all going (to avoid waste, something we can all agree is a problem); but if the prez. doesn't want to explain, he can just veto that part. No way does that fly.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Quote:

I don't agree with the notion that the President can just line-item veto anything he doesn't like, because there are parts of bills which are intended to limit the executive branch, and they shouldn't be able to be cut out if the prez. doesn't like them. For example, congress can authorize spending for war based upon the catch that the Prez has to say where it is all going (to avoid waste, something we can all agree is a problem); but if the prez. doesn't want to explain, he can just veto that part. No way does that fly.

Cycloptichorn

Thats true.
And Congress can override his veto,just like the constitution gives them the power to do.

0 Replies

Can they over-ride a line item veto? This isn't exactly clear.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Can they over-ride a line item veto? This isn't exactly clear.

Cycloptichorn

I dont know.
Again,since the President does not currently have the line item veto,that is sort of a moot point.

However,in the states where the governor DOES have the line item veto,the state legislature CAN override his line item veto.

0 Replies

Actually the President has been on a speaking circuit pretty steadily for the last month. A very few media sources (not the alphabet channels) have been telecasting those speeches and he has been doing a wonderful job of articulating his message on many different issues. Are you seeing that on the front pages of the mainstream media? No. In the evening ABC, CBS, NBC newscasts? No. Accurately portrayed by anti-Bush types on the message boards? No.

What you do get is a few seconds of a sound bite that may or may not accurately reflect his intent when placed in context.

MM is right. The President cannot get his message out unless the people make it a point to hear the message and it is not as easy as it is to think that it is. And then there is the fact that those who already dislike him won't believe the message even if it is heard or will interpret it differently than what he actually says.

The President has a specific constitutional role. Cyclop is right that it would be a problem for the President to veto certain types of bill, yet he does have the constitutional authority to veto ANY bill presented by Congress and then it is imperative on Congress to override the veto if they want the bill to stand. So the constitutional veto is already in place.

The issue is whether the President should be able to veto one component of a bill. If he did, then of course Congress could still override that line item veto with the requisite majority.

0 Replies

I wonder how much time would be spent trying to override specific instances of vetos by the president. It takes 2/3 majority of override a veto, so it would be a fine way for a minority party in the Senate to protect their president from having to actually follow any restrictions at all which are placed upon the president by the Congress. Unless you had a supermajority of congressmen and women, you could never compel the executive branch to do anything, ever. I don't buy it.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

You guys know that the line item veto was tried and struck down as being unconstitutional, right?

0 Replies

FreeDuck wrote:

You guys know that the line item veto was tried and struck down as being unconstitutional, right?

We know that,but that does not mean that the Supreme Court cannot visit the matter again if they choose.

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

I wonder how much time would be spent trying to override specific instances of vetos by the president. It takes 2/3 majority of override a veto, so it would be a fine way for a minority party in the Senate to protect their president from having to actually follow any restrictions at all which are placed upon the president by the Congress. Unless you had a supermajority of congressmen and women, you could never compel the executive branch to do anything, ever. I don't buy it.

Cycloptichorn

But the Constitution was written on a principle of a government of the people, by the people, and for the people. The minority party is the minority because fewer people voted for them than voted for the majority party. The people themselves put the majority into power because they want the majority to have the power to call the shots on those issues that are truly partisan. And it is the people who put the president into power with all the Consitutional power that is afforded the office.

If it doesn't work out the way YOU want it, very little enacted by Congress or vetoed by the president needs be forever permanent. YOU need to elect people to Congress and the Presidency who will do it the way you want it to be done the next time around.

The one thing that is virtually impossible to change that the President and Congress does is put people onto the Supreme Court. And in my opinion, that one is a real biggie too. But it has nothing to do with the line item veto and anything the President vetoes can be overridden or the law/policy/allocation etc. can be changed again in the next administration.

0 Replies

mysteryman wrote:

FreeDuck wrote:
You guys know that the line item veto was tried and struck down as being unconstitutional, right?

We know that,but that does not mean that the Supreme Court cannot visit the matter again if they choose.

Ok, but you understand that a line item veto violates the basic American principle of separation of powers. It's pretty unlikely that the Supreme Court will grant the president lawmaking powers that were so explicitly given to Congress and no-one else.

0 Replies

FreeDuck wrote:

mysteryman wrote:
FreeDuck wrote:
You guys know that the line item veto was tried and struck down as being unconstitutional, right?

We know that,but that does not mean that the Supreme Court cannot visit the matter again if they choose.

Ok, but you understand that a line item veto violates the basic American principle of separation of powers. It's pretty unlikely that the Supreme Court will grant the president lawmaking powers that were so explicitly given to Congress and no-one else.

I fail to see how it violates that principle.
The Constitution gives the President the power to veto any bill that congress presents to him.

How does the line item veto violate that?

0 Replies

Because it effectively allows the president to rewrite the legislation.

0 Replies

FreeDuck wrote:

Because it effectively allows the president to rewrite the legislation.

I dont agree with that.
It allows the President to fullfill his constitutionally mandated duty.
It does not deny the congress the authority to write legislation or to override his veto.

0 Replies

FreeDuck wrote:

mysteryman wrote:
FreeDuck wrote:
You guys know that the line item veto was tried and struck down as being unconstitutional, right?

We know that,but that does not mean that the Supreme Court cannot visit the matter again if they choose.

Ok, but you understand that a line item veto violates the basic American principle of separation of powers. It's pretty unlikely that the Supreme Court will grant the president lawmaking powers that were so explicitly given to Congress and no-one else.

No, I don't think it does violate the principle of separation of powers so long as Congress has the right to override the line item veto. Those who wrote the Constitution were strict Constitutionalists who never envisioned using the people's money for extensive social programs or charity or bribes to get people's votes. And up until FDR, Presidents and Congresses were pretty good about not doing that. Even FDR never envisioned massive pork barrel spending being implanted into totally unrelated legislation.

But because of the tendency that has always been there to enact legislation to curry favors whether or not such legislation was in the best interest of the country, veto power was given the President to ensure that a clear and unmistakable majority was necessary to enact the legislation if Congress serously disagreed with the Executive Branch.

I can't see how a line item veto would be any different than vetoing an entire bill. And I can see how it would be very useful for a President to eliminate unrelated items in a bill while letting the essential bill go forward to completion.

Congress could still put the vetoed items back in, but they would have to do so on an up or down vote and that just might restrain them a bit from pushing some of the ridiculous items they pass. (In years past, for instance, several hundred thousand dollars was allocated in a budget bill for a grant to study whether pigeons follow the same economic principles as people. Do you want you hard earned tax dollars going for stuff like that? Do you think your congressman would be caught dead voting for it right out in the open?)

0 Replies

mysteryman wrote:

FreeDuck wrote:
Because it effectively allows the president to rewrite the legislation.

I dont agree with that.
It allows the President to fullfill his constitutionally mandated duty.
It does not deny the congress the authority to write legislation or to override his veto.

How exactly would overriding a line item veto work? If the president has vetoed parts of a bill and signed the rest into law, what is there to override? The bill is no longer a bill at this point, it's a law (minus a few things the president didn't like).

Both your argument and Fox's assumes that a president is less likely to pass pork spending than the Congress. I just don't believe that's been shown to be the case.

As Fox said in an earlier post, Congress is there because we put them there. We elect them. If we don't want pork barrel spending, then we need to elect leaders who won't do it. We need to make it an issue. The Constitution gave the president three options when presented with a bill, sign, veto, or sit on it. Is there some reason why those three options are not adequate to address the issue of pork?

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

I can't see how a line item veto would be any different than vetoing an entire bill.

Then why is the line item veto necessary?

Quote:

And I can see how it would be very useful for a President to eliminate unrelated items in a bill while letting the essential bill go forward to completion.

Yes, it would be very useful to the president to be able to write his own legislation and then pass it. Fortunately for us, a separate branch of government has that responsibility.

0 Replies

WHO WILL WIN IN NOVEMBER?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know