http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN2424045620100524?type=marketsNews
a new way around the line-item veto?
Obama seeks to create tool to cut unnecessary spending
- Thread starter Robert Toy
- Start date
- Status
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN2424045620100524?type=marketsNews
a new way around the line-item veto?
Yeah, it looks like a way around the line-item veto. Or just another way for the executive and legislative branches to point fingers of blame at each other. It depends on the actual implementation, which of course, we won't know until they pass the bill.
- Joined
- May 8, 2010
- Messages
- 15,903
- Reaction score
- 4,652
- Location
- In a house
- Website
- vincentmorrone.com
It seems like the line item veto but it may be better because it forces congress to vote on those items again. I want to hear more about it. The devil is in the details, as they say.
Hmm, a quick wiki check tells me what a LIV is. Me...I think that it could be useful, but there are drawbacks. An extreme example would be...like...not vetoing the "gay people can marry" but vetoing the part that actually lets them marry....or some such tomfoolery.
Either way, more deets would be nice.
And if I end up deciding I don't like the idea of LIV for my Prezzy, I can always protest with signs like, "The Confederacy also owned slaves! Keep Line Item Vetoing out of our laws!"
Then I will have straw-men and hyperbolic statements too! Yay!
Either way, more deets would be nice.
And if I end up deciding I don't like the idea of LIV for my Prezzy, I can always protest with signs like, "The Confederacy also owned slaves! Keep Line Item Vetoing out of our laws!"
Then I will have straw-men and hyperbolic statements too! Yay!
- Joined
- May 8, 2010
- Messages
- 15,903
- Reaction score
- 4,652
- Location
- In a house
- Website
- vincentmorrone.com
The supreme court ruled that line item veto's were agaisnt the constitution, because it then has the potential to change the law to something that was not voted on.
Imagine a law that was passed only becasue there were exceptions written in, and then the President simply voted them out.
This seems on the surface to be different, because it sends the pieces back to be voted on again. I don't know if it will pass the constitional muster. My first question would be why not just send an amendment back. Like i said we need more details.
"Excellent— the more impediments to legislation the better."
--Professor Bernardo de la Paz
(Robert A. Heinlein The Moon is a Harsh Mistress)
--Professor Bernardo de la Paz
(Robert A. Heinlein The Moon is a Harsh Mistress)
We already have the tools we need to cut unecessary spending...Common sense, reason, and your own two eyes. Sadly, somebody forgot to order these for the D.C. supply list and instead ordered an abundance of greed, hyperbole, and snake oil.
ETA: Just a disclaimer, I don't really believe that everyone in Washington is a greedy little twit...didn't mean to come off that way. However, it would help if the lawmakers and spenders of the cash would use some of the sense God gave a goat when making decisions.
ETA: Just a disclaimer, I don't really believe that everyone in Washington is a greedy little twit...didn't mean to come off that way. However, it would help if the lawmakers and spenders of the cash would use some of the sense God gave a goat when making decisions.
Last edited:
Yeah, that works great until the Anti-Genocide party loses to the Pro-Genocide party in the Anti-Leg House and the Pro-Genocide party stats vetoing the "don't shoot railguns at Earth" bills and then everyone dies...
The issue I have with the package concept is that any administration (now or in the future), can load a package of valid “spending cuts” with let’s say cuts in military spending, education spending, etc. knowing that the opposing party will reject…hence the other guys would be branded as supporting pork spending.
- Joined
- May 8, 2010
- Messages
- 15,903
- Reaction score
- 4,652
- Location
- In a house
- Website
- vincentmorrone.com
Of course they aren't all little twits. Some are bigger than others.
[/QUOTE]However, it would help if the lawmakers and spenders of the cash would use some of the sense God gave a goat when making decisions.[/QUOTE]
I wonder if some of the twits in question would consider this as violating seperation of church and state?
I don't see why it wouldn't. There are other things that have been handled this way. Fast-tracking trade agreements, for example.
- Joined
- Dec 14, 2005
- Messages
- 6,326
- Reaction score
- 855
If there were limitations, it might work. If it's a free for all of an exploitable nature, I'm not sure it will fly.
Say, the President is only allowed to include his top 5 or 10 items to cut from the budget. It should be the things he really wants, instead of a political trapping mechanism. "Look at the GOP, they refuse to cut funding for pedophiles!!1!wun!"
Say, the President is only allowed to include his top 5 or 10 items to cut from the budget. It should be the things he really wants, instead of a political trapping mechanism. "Look at the GOP, they refuse to cut funding for pedophiles!!1!wun!"
If you could keep these thoughts to yourself and act on them instead of just blurting them out, you could have a future in politics...
I was going to say libertarianism, but whatever...
Well, quit saying things like "common sense, reason, and your own two eyes are more capable than a monolithic political machine," and you won't have to worry about it.
Keep talking crazy talk like that and you'll get lined up against the wall like the rest of us.
- Status