There has been talks on it from Congress. Hope it passes finally.
No too much power for the president. Would make the party that doesn't have enough power in congress useless to a point.
Somebody needs to be accountable.
If there is a LIV then we can say again, " the buck stops here. "
If there is a LIV then we can say again, " the buck stops here. "
Negative. Won't be used responsibly, it'll be abused.ATG wrote:
Somebody needs to be accountable.
If there is a LIV then we can say again, " the buck stops here. "
The idea of bipartisanship would go out the window.
If it takes out riders only it is useful why be bipartisan with issues of earmarks in the stimulus bill that doesn't stimulate.
Because, rather then debating it out and getting thing you don't like removed and getting things you like added one side could just decide to not even try since the President would veto all of their shit out of the bill he doesn't like and leave what he wants. Or he would just veto all the shit he doesn't like once they do debate it out. Makes one side useless.Warhammer wrote:
If it takes out riders only it is useful why be bipartisan with issues of earmarks in the stimulus bill that doesn't stimulate.
I wonder if its constitutional?
I could see a Supreme Court justice argue that the line-item veto is akin of the executive making and/or modifying laws passed by the Legislative branch...
I could see a Supreme Court justice argue that the line-item veto is akin of the executive making and/or modifying laws passed by the Legislative branch...
Obama doesn't read the bills so LIV isn't needed... just a quick rubber stamp and he's off... swiftly and boldy bringing comfort to all...lol
Love is the answer
Most of these earmarks get past without being debated, but I see your point. I would like to see what they do for rules on the line item veto though.Macbeth wrote:
Because, rather then debating it out and getting thing you don't like removed and getting things you like added one side could just decide to not even try since the President would veto all of their shit out of the bill he doesn't like and leave what he wants. Or he would just veto all the shit he doesn't like once they do debate it out. Makes one side useless.Warhammer wrote:
If it takes out riders only it is useful why be bipartisan with issues of earmarks in the stimulus bill that doesn't stimulate.
They aren't debated because earmarks usually aren't in the bills to begin with. They usually add them in after to get others in congress to vote for the core legislation. We simple folks call that extortion. Those congressmen go back to their local constituents and say look what I did! $450,000 in pig research for billy bobs farm. Forget about the fact that was $450k out of 800 billion.. you're a hero!..Warhammer wrote:
Most of these earmarks get past without being debated, but I see your point. I would like to see what they do for rules on the line item veto though.Macbeth wrote:
Because, rather then debating it out and getting thing you don't like removed and getting things you like added one side could just decide to not even try since the President would veto all of their shit out of the bill he doesn't like and leave what he wants. Or he would just veto all the shit he doesn't like once they do debate it out. Makes one side useless.Warhammer wrote:
If it takes out riders only it is useful why be bipartisan with issues of earmarks in the stimulus bill that doesn't stimulate.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
LIV doesn't give the POTUS carte blanche. It works like any other veto...if the line item that was vetoed is important enough to Congress, they will override the veto and put it back in.
The only real threat here is potential marginalization of the minority party in Congress. Of course, that depends on the ratio between the majority and minority party...and whether the POTUS is part of the majority or minority party.
Interesting that the Democrat-controlled Congress would be taking this issue up...they've fought it tooth and nail from the first time it was raised. By Republicans. I could see Pelosi and/or Reed trying to get this through in an attempt to further marginalize the other side...much as they've done process-wise already. Good to see they're so "bipartisan".
Would be interesting to see which side is starting the discussion.
The only real threat here is potential marginalization of the minority party in Congress. Of course, that depends on the ratio between the majority and minority party...and whether the POTUS is part of the majority or minority party.
Interesting that the Democrat-controlled Congress would be taking this issue up...they've fought it tooth and nail from the first time it was raised. By Republicans. I could see Pelosi and/or Reed trying to get this through in an attempt to further marginalize the other side...much as they've done process-wise already. Good to see they're so "bipartisan".
Would be interesting to see which side is starting the discussion.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
That is so wrong for so many reasons. It would be absurd if it passed.
Pretty much.Macbeth wrote:
Because, rather then debating it out and getting thing you don't like removed and getting things you like added one side could just decide to not even try since the President would veto all of their shit out of the bill he doesn't like and leave what he wants. Or he would just veto all the shit he doesn't like once they do debate it out. Makes one side useless.Warhammer wrote:
If it takes out riders only it is useful why be bipartisan with issues of earmarks in the stimulus bill that doesn't stimulate.
We have a separation of powers for a reason.