Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Paul Ryan's line item veto circumvents founder's intentions - Crowns President!
2-25-12 | johnwk

Posted on 02/25/2012 9:18:38 AM PST by JOHN W K

As Tea Party Activists must know by now, the House passed line item veto powers for president Obama.

SEE: US House votes to give Obama limited line-item veto

Thursday February 9, 2012

“WASHINGTON(Reuters) - The U.S. House of Representatives voted to give President Barack Obama a limited line-item veto authority on Wednesday in a rare display of bipartisanship on bitterly divisive spending and budget issues.”

CLICK HERE for the roll call vote.

I never though Paul Ryan would sell out to the Washington Establishment and approve granting this blackmailing power to the President, and ignore our Constitution’s written procedure regarding a bill the President vetoes.

The veto procedure is laid out in crystal clear language in our Constitution. If the president vetoes a bill it is returned to the House that originated the bill with the president’s objections, and the bill [not parts of the bill which the president doesn’t like] is then to be reconsidered and needs a two thirds vote of that House to override the President’s veto which then requires the bill to be sent, together with the Objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a Law.

Unfortunately, Paul Ryan is comfortable with taking it upon himself to change the veto procedure outlined in our Constitution and do for the people that which the people have not willingly agreed to do for themselves via our Constitution‘s required amendment process.

Under Ryan’s circumvention of our Constitution, the president is granted extraordinary power to withhold funding for whatever he so desires which not only defies appropriations made by law and undermines the legislative “sausage” making process that created the bill, but as we were warned:

''The negative of the governor was constantly made use of to extort money. No good law whatever could be passed without a private bargain with him. An increase of salary or some donation, was always made a condition; till at last, it became the regular practice to have orders in his favor on the treasury presented along with the bills to be signed, so that he might actually receive the former before he should sign the latter. When the Indians were scalping the Western people, and notice of it arrived, the concurrence of the governor in the means of self-defense could not be got, until it was agreed that the people were to fight for the security of his property, whilst he was to have no share of the burdens of taxation.'' ___ SEE: Benjamin Franklin, June 4 of the Constitutional Convention

Paul Ryan also alleges that “Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant to the following: Article I, Section 9, Clause 7.” which has nothing to do with the allowable veto power procedure which is articulated in Article 1, Section 7, Clause 2.

Representative Paul Ryan, in my opinion, is a disappointment to all those who support and defend our written Constitution as a priority.


"If the Constitution was ratified under the belief, sedulously propagated on all sides, that such protection was afforded, would it not now be a fraud upon the whole people to give a different construction to its powers?"___ Justice Story

TOPICS: Business/Economy; Government; Politics
KEYWORDS: item; line; ryan; veto

1 posted on 02/25/2012 9:18:53 AM PST by JOHN W K
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]


Hopefully this gets challenged. Line item veto was already killed by the supreme court IIRC as being unconstitutional.

2 posted on 02/25/2012 9:24:01 AM PST by onona (Dicky Betts is one ramblin man !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


This is the same line item veto request that Bush requested in 2006 that Congress wouldn’t pass.

In the 90s Clinton v. City of New York, SCOTUS ruled as unconstitutional the line item veto then passed. The difference in this one is that it goes back to the House to reconsider. Given Scalia’s partial dissent in the case, quite frankly, I am VERY worried that with this change to the Bush requested law, SCOTUS may find this one constitutional (though I absolutely don’t think it is).

In short, do I think SCOTUS will uphold this? Sadly, yes.

3 posted on 02/25/2012 9:28:38 AM PST by RIghtwardHo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RIghtwardHo

I suppose it goes without saying, this would be very very bad.

4 posted on 02/25/2012 9:32:56 AM PST by onona (Dicky Betts is one ramblin man !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]


Reagan begged for the line-item veto; the Left-controlled CONgress shot it down.

Clinton begged for, and got, the line-item veto; the Supremes at the time called it unconstitutional.

With a Leftist majority currently on the Court (Souter, Bader-Meinhoff, the Wise Latina, Kagan, and Kennedy), who knows how they’ll rule this time?

5 posted on 02/25/2012 9:34:29 AM PST by Old Sarge (RIP FReeper Skyraider (1930-2011) - You Are Missed)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


The only way out is to stop electing criminals to Congress.

Congress is the mechanism the founders created for us to rule ourselves. We are failing miserably.

If this goes on, there will be a dictatorship.

6 posted on 02/25/2012 9:38:17 AM PST by Jim Noble ("The Germans: At your feet, or at your throat" - Winston Churchill)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Very disturbing, is there not one TRUE conservative left?

7 posted on 02/25/2012 9:42:04 AM PST by annieokie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: onona

VERY very bad, indeed.

8 posted on 02/25/2012 9:47:57 AM PST by RIghtwardHo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

Hmm, what is the significance of Franklin's comment?
9 posted on 02/25/2012 10:10:59 AM PST by Jacquerie (No court will save us from ourselves.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All
It's just business as usual....officially sanctioned criminal business. The vast majority in Congress wants things to keep on as it has been for years....payoffs to themselves by lobbyists, ear marks, bridges to nowhere. This is not limited to democrats....GOP wants the same exact things.

Now, with this veto will fly through the Senate and be signed by obama the next day. The Senate will then start passing anything the Republicans want, because they know the a$$hole president will veto it out. The S_T_U_P_I_D Republicans figure that after obama veto's some conservative part of a bill, they can stand up and shout that they are trying to fix things but obama is vetoing every "good thing". They think this will be a major campaign issue against obama and they will make a couple of 1 minute campaign commercials using the issue. BUT, obama will just call a presser or take a trip to Cleveland and Detroit and say the Republicans are making a political issue out of it.....the media, INCLUDING FOX, will air it for 3 days, giving obama a few hundred FREE hours of campaign positive coverage.


10 posted on 02/25/2012 10:35:20 AM PST by jmax
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: annieokie; Jim Noble; RIghtwardHo; onona; Old Sarge
I wonder why FoxNews has not brought this to the people’s attention. If it passes in the Senate, neither Obama nor any president will have to hide a Solyndra swindle deal using unconstitutional executive orders, but will be able to blackmail and make deals with members of Congress to get the president’s piece of the pie with the threat of vetoing Congress’ plunder of our federal treasury as occurred with the bridge to nowhere.

Seems as though the veto power deal is intentionally designed to keep the president’s mouth closed while the Washington Establishment will continue to plunder America’s federal treasury.


Our federal government personifies a living creature, a predator: it grows, it multiplies, it protects itself, it feeds on those it can defeat, and does everything to expand its powers and flourish, even at the expense of enslaving a nation’s entire population.

11 posted on 02/25/2012 12:26:53 PM PST by JOHN W K
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]


You are exactly correct.

As for Fox News, I wrote them off a long time ago as being in the pocket of the GOP Elite. Oh, once in awhile, they’ll say something we wanna here to keep us engaged, but I stopped watching “news entertainment” LONG ago. It’s all crap.

12 posted on 02/25/2012 12:34:33 PM PST by RIghtwardHo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

Very good.

Established so that the Washington Establishment can continue to PLUNDER.

This has to be stopped, but won't be. I had a better opinion of Paul Ryan that this, guess he is one of the GREAT PRETENDERS as well, and we were all foolded.

Anyone want him as VP now?

13 posted on 02/25/2012 12:37:13 PM PST by annieokie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: annieokie; Jim Noble; RIghtwardHo; onona; Old Sarge
Thomas Jefferson once stated: "In matters of Power, let no more be heard of confidence in men, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution" Paul Ryan needs to let us know how his line item veto power granted to the President binds the President into vetoing the billions upon billions of proposed misappropriations of federal revenue which Congress currently includes in its bills.

The fact is, Ryan’s proposal does not bind the President in such a manner, but rather, it arms the president with a despotic blackmailing power which can be used to extort members of Congress into including extra billions in misappropriations which the president may require to not exercise his line item blackmailing power.

If Ryan were sincere in wanting to end the plundering of our national treasury, he would promote legislation requiring every proposed expenditure of federal revenue must be accompanied by the wording in our Constitution which is asserted to authorize such an expenditure, and, must likewise contain documentation from the debates during which time our Constitution was being framed and ratified showing the wording relied upon was intended to cover said expenditure.

As an example, what wording in our Constitution would authorize Congress to appropriate federal revenue to fund the No Child Left Behind Act, and, what wording can be pointed to during the framing and ratification debates of our Constitution to establish our founders intended to have Congress finance public school systems established under state Constitutions within the various united States?


America we have a problem! We have a group of DOMESTIC ENEMIES who have managed to seize political power and whose mission is in fact to bring “change” to America ___ the dismantling of our military defensive power; the allowance of our borders to be overrun by foreign invaders, the diluting of our election process by allowing ineligible persons to vote; the circumvention of our Republican Form of Government which is now replaced with a 12 member committee vested with power to make law; the destruction of our manufacturing capabilities; the transferring of America’s technology to hostile foreign nations; the strangulation of our agricultural industry and ability to produce food under the guise of environmental necessity; the destruction of our nation’s health care delivery system, the interference with our ability to develop our natural resources, namely oil, to fuel our economy; the looting of both our federal treasury and a mandatory retirement pension fund; the brainwashing of our nation’s children in government operated schools; the trashing of our nation’s traditions and moral values; the creation of an iron fisted control unauthorized by our written Constitution over America’s businesses and industries; the devaluation of our nation’s currency, and, the future enslavement of our children and grand children via unbridled debt and inflation, not to mention an iron fisted government which intends to rule their very lives!

14 posted on 02/25/2012 3:13:46 PM PST by JOHN W K
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]


Heck yeah. I know if I were President, I’d wield that power like a club, daily.

Why that’s not obvious to Ryan and the gang, I do not know (cause I don’t think I’m that unique in regards to “power wielding”).

15 posted on 02/25/2012 5:56:27 PM PST by onona (Dicky Betts is one ramblin man !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson