Posted on 03/07/2006 4:05:02 PM PST by indcons
I hope Bush gets this done. Then he could avoid the veto item by item instead of one whole bill at a time.
Bush and vetos, that's teh funny of the day.
No surpise here, the Republicans gave it to Clinton; and the Supreme's ruled it un-consitutional.
Now we have a new mix in the Supremes ... let's try it again.
one thing i didn't quite get, maybe someone could answer for me, but when the president marks items for veto and congress then votes on them, do they vote on all line-item vetoes for a bill at once? or do they vote on each line veto individually? it seems like if they have to vote on all of the line-item vetoes at once we'll end up with the same sort of back-scratching we have now.
"Now we have a new mix in the Supremes ... let's try it again."
From your keyboard to the eyes and ears of SCOTUS! When will taxpayers finally hold our spendthrift government's feet to the fire? It can't come soon enough for me.
From what I understand, the process wouldn't be for Congress to decide whether it liked the recisions. The process would be for Congress to decide whether the bill, with recisions, was better than no bill at all. If Congress wanted to have fewer recisions, it could attempt to introduce a new version of the bill, with some of the recisions but not all; this would then put the ball back into the President's court as to whether to accept it, making clear that if he rejected it the result would probably be no bill at all.
About 6 years too late
TT
Whatever the name, the basic idea is that Congress reserves the power to decide whether the revised bill is better or worse than no bill at all. Under the old line-item veto it did not retain that power.
On a related note, I'd like to see a Constitutional amendment mandating that no delegation of Congress' legislative authority may last more than 30 days beyond the start of the next congress. For a regulatory agency to retain power, its continuance must be approved by 50%+1 of both branches of Congress plus the executive, or by 2/3 of both branches if the executive does not approve. Only 50.0% of either branch, or 1/3+1 and the executive, would be required to kill a regulatory agency.
The Congress can write their way around it and not all Presidents will use it for the good of the country.
Just quickly re your suggestion: It doesn't bar congress from enacting broad grants of authority to the executive, which is the problem. I don't think that can be done and sometimes it is wise.
Calling that delegating "legislative authority" is merely rhetorical (though sometimes it does happen to be so).
Tell Nancy Pelosi that the constitution gives the power of the purse to the House of Represenatives. They should not be abdicating this or shuffling it off to the president.
While I agree it's a good thing to have...if you look forward a few months it almost smells like fear. Fear of losing a few seats in the upcoming election and having the ability to veto Dem line items. Interesting strategy.
At long as the final bill is the result of majority votes in both houses I think it will be good to have it.
The FDA, BATF, and many agencies freely write rules which have the force of law. The only legislative oversight is usually IIRC that Congress, with a majority of BOTH houses, can refuse to allow a new regulation from taking effect.
Actually, IMHO, the amendment I described shouldn't be necessary since the requirement that both houses must have a majority vote against proposed new rules in order to kill them would seem to constitute a rule by one congress binding another. On the other hand, I don't know anyone who would have standing to challenge that.
Voting FOR this is the GOP's ticket to victory in November. All of them need to pay attention. We're watching closely if they want to be re-elected.
I'd rather have the house accept its power and responsibility, as Newt did.
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.