WHO WILL WIN IN NOVEMBER?

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?

MM, I saw your example, I just don't know why a regular veto wouldn't adequately do the job in this case. The only reasons that I can see to allow a line item veto are political ones, and I don't support changing our system of government for political reasons. If congress has a bad habit then it is up to the people who put them there (us) to cure them of it. The president has many opportunities to set the precedent of vetoing pork bills. Congress inserts pork because they know the president will sign it. How many vetoes do you think it would take before they stopped doing that?

Let me give you a counter example. Let's say that Congress passes a gun control law that has a sunset provision, say just two years away. The president, who we'll pretend is a flaming grab-your-guns liberal, vetoes just the sunset provision. You okay with that?

Under your example,as long as he has the constitutional authority to do that,then yes I am comfortable with it.
Congress would then have the authority to override his veto,or the next President would be able to reverse the policy.
Either way,I would have no problem with it,as long as what was done was constitutional.

mysteryman wrote:

Under your example,as long as he has the constitutional authority to do that,then yes I am comfortable with it.
Congress would then have the authority to override his veto,or the next President would be able to reverse the policy.
Either way,I would have no problem with it,as long as what was done was constitutional.

Of course, I don't think it is or could be constitutional. And a future president could not reverse the policy without passing another law, which he would have to convince congress to do for him. How exactly would a line item veto override work again?

FreeDuck wrote:

mysteryman wrote:

Under your example,as long as he has the constitutional authority to do that,then yes I am comfortable with it.
Congress would then have the authority to override his veto,or the next President would be able to reverse the policy.
Either way,I would have no problem with it,as long as what was done was constitutional.

Of course, I don't think it is or could be constitutional. And a future president could not reverse the policy without passing another law, which he would have to convince congress to do for him. How exactly would a line item veto override work again?

With a line item veto,the President would have the power to override any part of legislation that he disagrees with or finds to be pork.

Even today,a President has the ability to reverse any policies made by his predecessor,without passing new laws to do it.

mysteryman wrote:

FreeDuck wrote:

mysteryman wrote:

Under your example,as long as he has the constitutional authority to do that,then yes I am comfortable with it.
Congress would then have the authority to override his veto,or the next President would be able to reverse the policy.
Either way,I would have no problem with it,as long as what was done was constitutional.

Of course, I don't think it is or could be constitutional. And a future president could not reverse the policy without passing another law, which he would have to convince congress to do for him. How exactly would a line item veto override work again?

With a line item veto,the President would have the power to override any part of legislation that he disagrees with or finds to be pork.

Yes, I got that, but how would congress override that veto since he would have since passed the bill?

Resend the original legislation back to the President,thats how.
Just because a law has been passed does not mean that it cant be reversed or rescinded by a later administration.
I give you prohibition as an example.

Quote:

Even today,a President has the ability to reverse any policies made by his predecessor,without passing new laws to do it.

We're not talking about policies, we're talking about law. When the president signs a bill, it becomes law. If a president signed a gun control law, a future president can't just come and unsign it. To change a law he would need new legislation.

Resend the original legislation back to the President,thats how.
[/color]

I know you're not going to assert that Republicans and "right wingers" don't add pork onto bills.

Resend the original legislation, which the president has already picked the parts he likes from, for the president to again pick apart, or better yet, veto the whole thing because he already has the law he wants.

A veto today works by congress voting 2/3 to 1/3 to override the president. If successful, the bill becomes law. In the case of a line item veto, the bill is already law.

I know you're not going to assert that Republicans and "right wingers" don't add pork onto bills.

Resend the original legislation, which the president has already picked the parts he likes from, for the president to again pick apart, or better yet, veto the whole thing because he already has the law he wants.

A veto today works by congress voting 2/3 to 1/3 to override the president. If successful, the bill becomes law. In the case of a line item veto, the bill is already law.

They do and there needs to be a solution. But the left wing is the group which spends and spends and spends and never saw a tax hike they did not like so that they could get the masses of poor Blacks and Hispanics to vote for them and keep them in power.

It sounds to me, Freeduck, that you have no idea as to how law making works.