Discussion in 'Politics' started by Angel Heart, Jan 29, 2008.
Well, better late then never.
Not that anyone cares, I suppose, but posting the entire text of the article is a copyright violation. I think the users here should have enough respect for the site admins (and terms of service) not to do that. A lot of people do it, not just Angel, so I'm not singling her out, just keep forgetting to mention it. A lot of people don't realize its a violation.
It's about time Bush tried to do something about spending. I don't think it will help his record as a bigger-government President too much though.
i have to say when i heard him mention he would sign an executive order preventing the dispersement of earmarks that havent been debated on the floor i was incredibly pissed. Not because i support earmarks, but because if its just that easy to do why the heck hasnt it been done years ago?!
That's easy... it's because he's trying to be successful at something...anything. And, besides,
I don't think he can do it anyway. It's a backdoor line-item veto and it's illegal.
So there ya go.
I tend to agree, he is trying to provide material for his many apologists. His mention of children surprised me, all of a sudden he has a heart! What a weird person he is.
It is NOT illegal. However he can not prevent the money from being transfered to the programs. That money though can not be used for any other purpose UNLESS Congress agrees to it. I do not know but suspect as long as the Departments do NOT order the projects or items in the earmarks the money just never transfers, not sure how that effects the supposed counting of Government spending though.
Now I do agree depending on the wording in the appropriation the President may not be able to prevent some of it and in the future Congress will just ensure the wording IS there.
As for the American people, if they really cared about this issue the President could veto those bills and the Congress would get innudated with angry demands by voters to NOT put them back. We all konw THAT won't happen.
I don't think it equates to a line-item veto because it doesn't effect statutes or legislation voted on and passed by Congress. Congress often puts earmarks in non-statutory sources, and Executive agencies in the past have given a certain amount of deference to this, according to my understanding. I believe the Supreme Court has held that language in reports and other non-statutory sources are not binding on the executive agencies. If that's the case, then Bush can certainly issue an Executive order telling the agencies not to fund any such earmarks.
On the other hand, if the same earmarks are voted into legislation, then Bush can't do anything about them individually. He has to either sign or veto the legislation at issue as a whole.
Separate names with a comma.