Line Item Veto has got to come back!

Discussion in 'Politics' started by ihopehefails, Nov 28, 2009.

  1. ihopehefails
    Offline

    ihopehefails BANNED

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2009
    Messages:
    3,384
    Thanks Received:
    228
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +228
    When we had the line item veto in the 90s it was one reason that we were able to control spending but that got overturned by the courts so it is no longer used. I think we should have a constitutional amendment that gives the president the power to veto all or any part of a budget and whatever part gets vetoed can get revoted on in the congress. I think this simple thing should be able to draw down the budget.
     
  2. Oddball
    Offline

    Oddball BANNED Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2009
    Messages:
    41,428
    Thanks Received:
    8,397
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Drinking wine, eating cheese, catching rays
    Ratings:
    +8,409
    Going to take a constitutional amendment.
     
  3. rightwinger
    Offline

    rightwinger Paid Messageboard Poster Gold Supporting Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2009
    Messages:
    120,262
    Thanks Received:
    19,822
    Trophy Points:
    2,190
    Location:
    NJ & MD
    Ratings:
    +45,337
    When did we ever have a line item veto?

    It will change the balance of power between the legislative and executive branch. Not as easy as it sounds
     
  4. Big Fitz
    Offline

    Big Fitz User Quit *****

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2009
    Messages:
    16,917
    Thanks Received:
    2,473
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +2,475
    I'm with Dude on this one. It's going to take a constitutional amendment. And what RW said, there has never been a presidential Line Item veto. Gubernatorial Line Item Vetoes have existed in some states.... and that's where the idea comes from.

    That said, we need about 2-4 anti corruption amendments ranging from line item veto to, anti-gerrymandering to term limits for elected officials AND bureaucrats.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  5. Kevin_Kennedy
    Offline

    Kevin_Kennedy Defend Liberty

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2008
    Messages:
    17,590
    Thanks Received:
    1,581
    Trophy Points:
    205
    Location:
    Ohio
    Ratings:
    +2,027
    The President should accept or reject a bill in its entirety. What we need is the Congress to stop combining things that don't belong together.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  6. California Girl
    Offline

    California Girl BANNED

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2009
    Messages:
    50,337
    Thanks Received:
    8,960
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +8,965
    We absolutely must stop congresscritters combining shit with sugar.
     
  7. Gatekeeper
    Offline

    Gatekeeper Senior Member

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2009
    Messages:
    2,004
    Thanks Received:
    350
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    New Jersey
    Ratings:
    +350
    Since the "Line-Item Veto" is to be solely used for Fiscal Restraint.................
    Not many want to be limited in repaying their PALS for their loyalty, in my opinion.

    Bill Clinton used the line-item Veto 82 times in 11 Bills BTW.

    The latest line-item veto is not as effective as the 1996 version since it requires this B.S. CONGRESS, one of our major problems, Congressional approval, which means they can rescind whatever the president would find as pork barrel spending.

    How can any government keep passing such lame useless BILLS, then water them down making them nothing more than a passport to corruption and mismanagement is OUR fault for allowing it to perpetuate itself.

    And one could bet that THEY are passing laws to make it harder for the citizens to make changes and put a stop to this nonsense, as we speak, ensuring their dominance over the citizens.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  8. Xenophon
    Offline

    Xenophon Gone and forgotten

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2008
    Messages:
    16,705
    Thanks Received:
    3,750
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    In your head
    Ratings:
    +3,751
    It would be pointless.

    The real problem is what we call 'earmarks', things attached with only a paper clip to bills that have nothing to do with one another that have to be voted on then signed into law.

    This kind of procedural change could be enacted right away, but it would end political favors so neither of the two parties will do it.

    The chances of getting a Constitutional change are nill, the requirement is too stiff for it.
     
  9. The T
    Offline

    The T George S. Patton Party Supporting Member

    Joined:
    May 24, 2009
    Messages:
    48,072
    Thanks Received:
    5,473
    Trophy Points:
    1,773
    Location:
    What USED TO BE A REPUBLIC RUN BY TYRANTS
    Ratings:
    +5,502
    True. But what I would like to see is a bill survive on it's merit(s) alone without any riders attached. But the chances of that are what you have already described.

    The only way is that the People, (whom really control the purse strings) demand it overwhelmingly.

    But does pessemism/apathy rule these tough times?
     
  10. Gatekeeper
    Offline

    Gatekeeper Senior Member

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2009
    Messages:
    2,004
    Thanks Received:
    350
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    New Jersey
    Ratings:
    +350
    Can all of us imagine if contracts in general were written in this chaotic manner as our own government in Washington D.C writes these BILLS?

    They would all be in favor of the Lessor and never the lessee etc etc. That type of "contract" is like having an open-ended agreement with essentially no limits.
    And we, the citizens, sit back, complain about this out-of-control congress/senate and D.C in general and still are unable to stop them from this, in my opinion, Abuse of Power?


    WHAT A JOKE!! and it's not friggen funny
     
    Last edited: Nov 29, 2009

Share This Page