Line Item Veto

[Claudette]

Rather than give a line item veto, I would rather see complete transparency on all bills. Make it clear who added what and why. All earmarks and riders should be clearly marked with who added them.

I'd also like to see a way to keep all non-relevant earmarks and riders off of Congressional bills

i would support it and a constitutional amendment to end earmarks
if a project is worthy and qualified for federal funding, then it should stand on its own and be voted on (up/down)

Agree

There should be a way to submit earmarks by themselves or in groups of similar requests that can be voted on their own merits. To add to an unrelated bill and say "I will not vote for the bill unless you add my earmark" should not be allowed

Totally agree.

Nice to have a conversation without being called as asshole or a partisan hack. Thanks to all on this thread. Good comments and suggestions. We can all play nicely when we want to.

 

[jillian]

Edning earmarks wouldn't require Constitutional amendment, just a change in the procedural rules in the House and Senate disallowing unrelated amendments to bills. Why do it the hard way?

I suspect if they did what you suggest and do some meaningful campaign finance reform, a lot of the complaints people have about government would disappaer.

 

[goldcatt]

Edning earmarks wouldn't require Constitutional amendment, just a change in the procedural rules in the House and Senate disallowing unrelated amendments to bills. Why do it the hard way?

I suspect if they did what you suggest and do some meaningful campaign finance reform, a lot of the complaints people have about government would disappaer.

Exactly. The system of government itself is sound, it's some of the political backscratching traditions that have grown up within it that are the problem. Too many people forget there is a big difference between governance and politics. Changing one won't fix the other.

 

[jillian]

Edning earmarks wouldn't require Constitutional amendment, just a change in the procedural rules in the House and Senate disallowing unrelated amendments to bills. Why do it the hard way?

I suspect if they did what you suggest and do some meaningful campaign finance reform, a lot of the complaints people have about government would disappaer.

Exactly. The system of government itself is sound, it's some of the political backscratching traditions that have grown up within it that are the problem. Too many people forget there is a big difference between governance and politics. Changing one won't fix the other.

I think perhaps people also have to stop yelling that corporations are "people" with "free speech" rights that enable lobbyists.

but there are do-able things that would get bi-partisan support from the electorate.

unfortunately, they would destroy politicians' little fiefdoms.

 

[goldcatt]

I suspect if they did what you suggest and do some meaningful campaign finance reform, a lot of the complaints people have about government would disappaer.

Exactly. The system of government itself is sound, it's some of the political backscratching traditions that have grown up within it that are the problem. Too many people forget there is a big difference between governance and politics. Changing one won't fix the other.

I think perhaps people also have to stop yelling that corporations are "people" with "free speech" rights that enable lobbyists.

but there are do-able things that would get bi-partisan support from the electorate.

unfortunately, they would destroy politicians' little fiefdoms.

I hate to say it, but if we keep electing the jerks who are in it to build their fiefdoms and nothing else then who's really to blame? I don't think hard term limits are the answer either, once again that's messing with government to fix politics. But people need to take a good hard look at the choices the parties are giving them and not be afraid to go outside the box.

 

[rightwinger]

I suspect if they did what you suggest and do some meaningful campaign finance reform, a lot of the complaints people have about government would disappaer.

Exactly. The system of government itself is sound, it's some of the political backscratching traditions that have grown up within it that are the problem. Too many people forget there is a big difference between governance and politics. Changing one won't fix the other.

I think perhaps people also have to stop yelling that corporations are "people" with "free speech" rights that enable lobbyists.

but there are do-able things that would get bi-partisan support from the electorate.

unfortunately, they would destroy politicians' little fiefdoms.

Corporations and their lobbyists have a right to free speech. Nobody, however, is obligated to listen to them.

 

[goldcatt]

Exactly. The system of government itself is sound, it's some of the political backscratching traditions that have grown up within it that are the problem. Too many people forget there is a big difference between governance and politics. Changing one won't fix the other.

I think perhaps people also have to stop yelling that corporations are "people" with "free speech" rights that enable lobbyists.

but there are do-able things that would get bi-partisan support from the electorate.

unfortunately, they would destroy politicians' little fiefdoms.

Corporations and their lobbyists have a right to free speech. Nobody, however, is obligated to listen to them.

They have that right. But giving it to them was one of the worst mistakes we as a antion ever made, if you ask me. Corporations are not part of The People, they are profit making organizations with their own agendas far different from your everyday citizen. They should be treated as such. Individual liberties were designed for individuals.

 

[DiveCon]

Edning earmarks wouldn't require Constitutional amendment, just a change in the procedural rules in the House and Senate disallowing unrelated amendments to bills. Why do it the hard way?

yes, but a constitutional amendment making it unconstitutional would be a lot harder to change or override

 

[nodoginnafight]

I wonder if it would have a significant enough ripple effect if we simply passed a law that mandated that political contributions have to come from within the district/state. And (just spitballing) what if we banned political donations from organizations. Only contributions from individuals who live within the area the elected official would represent ???

Again, a free-speech for organizations argument could be made I guess.

 

[goldcatt]

Edning earmarks wouldn't require Constitutional amendment, just a change in the procedural rules in the House and Senate disallowing unrelated amendments to bills. Why do it the hard way?

yes, but a constitutional amendment making it unconstitutional would be a lot harder to change or override

And a lot harder to get in the first place. Why take years of arguing and hundreds of millions of dollars in campaigning and lobbying when all it really takes is a simple internal procedural change?

 

[DiveCon]

Edning earmarks wouldn't require Constitutional amendment, just a change in the procedural rules in the House and Senate disallowing unrelated amendments to bills. Why do it the hard way?

yes, but a constitutional amendment making it unconstitutional would be a lot harder to change or override

And a lot harder to get in the first place. Why take years of arguing and hundreds of millions of dollars in campaigning and lobbying when all it really takes is a simple internal procedural change?

because all it would take to UNDO it would be that very same simple procedure


do you REALLY trust those guys enough to leave it to them?

 

[DiveCon]

I wonder if it would have a significant enough ripple effect if we simply passed a law that mandated that political contributions have to come from within the district/state. And (just spitballing) what if we banned political donations from organizations. Only contributions from individuals who live within the area the elected official would represent ???

Again, a free-speech for organizations argument could be made I guess.

exactly

 

[goldcatt]

I wonder if it would have a significant enough ripple effect if we simply passed a law that mandated that political contributions have to come from within the district/state. And (just spitballing) what if we banned political donations from organizations. Only contributions from individuals who live within the area the elected official would represent ???

Again, a free-speech for organizations argument could be made I guess.

You're right, it's a speech issue. And again, I think that's a mistake. The political speech of organizations should not have the same level of protection as individual political speech. But until and unless that rule changes (and that is one Constitutional amendment I would back) what you're proposing is also unconstitutional.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Why would anyone think that the right would support Obama getting line item veto?

I'm sure they wouldn't but they would support the idea of a Republican president getting it. They may think someday we might have another Republican president.

What part of it is Unconstitutional don't you UNDERSTAND? It doesn't matter WHO is President. Congress writes legislation the President either agrees or disagrees with his signature. Line Item Veto allows the President to Rewrite legislation, it will NEVER be found Constitutional with out an Amendment to the Constitution.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Does anyone wonder why the Big 0 has not asked his minions in the Congress for the Line Item Veto? Why he hasn't used the Bully Pulpit to bring this to the public? Since the Repubs have no chance of getting anything passed at all, he'd probably have all of their votes on this right away.

Everyone agrees that the budget will never be balanced until the Chief Executive has this power and this is the ideal time to get it with big majorities in both houses.

C'mon, Prez, have Harry and Nancy give you the LIV.

the Supreme Court already said the line item veto is unconstitutional.

no, they didnt
they ruled the LAW was unconstitutional because of the fact it changed the constitution without following the amendment process

Which means they ruled it is Unconstitutional. NO form of Line item Veto will ever be found Constitutional. It would require an Amendment which then would be separate from a congressional act creating a line item veto.

I doubt a line item veto amendment could pass either, once those with any brains explained the very BAD effects such a power would give a President.

 

[nodoginnafight]

I wonder if it would have a significant enough ripple effect if we simply passed a law that mandated that political contributions have to come from within the district/state. And (just spitballing) what if we banned political donations from organizations. Only contributions from individuals who live within the area the elected official would represent ???

Again, a free-speech for organizations argument could be made I guess.

You're right, it's a speech issue. And again, I think that's a mistake. The political speech of organizations should not have the same level of protection as individual political speech. But until and unless that rule changes (and that is one Constitutional amendment I would back) what you're proposing is also unconstitutional.

What about the "local only" rule? - Only contributions from within the area that is covered? Do individuals/groups from outside have a constitutional right to donate to a candidate in an election that doesn't represent them?

 

[goldcatt]

yes, but a constitutional amendment making it unconstitutional would be a lot harder to change or override

And a lot harder to get in the first place. Why take years of arguing and hundreds of millions of dollars in campaigning and lobbying when all it really takes is a simple internal procedural change?

because all it would take to UNDO it would be that very same simple procedure


do you REALLY trust those guys enough to leave it to them?

Do you really want to feed the beast in order to try to destroy it? The lobbying, partisan media and professional tactics industries would have a field day gobbling up time, money and resources for one side or the other - but do you really think at the end of the day they'd allow something like that to pass and diminish their own power? Think about what's involved there, ain't gonna happen.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I wonder if it would have a significant enough ripple effect if we simply passed a law that mandated that political contributions have to come from within the district/state. And (just spitballing) what if we banned political donations from organizations. Only contributions from individuals who live within the area the elected official would represent ???

Again, a free-speech for organizations argument could be made I guess.

You're right, it's a speech issue. And again, I think that's a mistake. The political speech of organizations should not have the same level of protection as individual political speech. But until and unless that rule changes (and that is one Constitutional amendment I would back) what you're proposing is also unconstitutional.

What about the "local only" rule? - Only contributions from within the area that is covered? Do individuals/groups from outside have a constitutional right to donate to a candidate in an election that doesn't represent them?

Senators are State wide. Presidents are Country wide.

 

[goldcatt]

I wonder if it would have a significant enough ripple effect if we simply passed a law that mandated that political contributions have to come from within the district/state. And (just spitballing) what if we banned political donations from organizations. Only contributions from individuals who live within the area the elected official would represent ???

Again, a free-speech for organizations argument could be made I guess.

You're right, it's a speech issue. And again, I think that's a mistake. The political speech of organizations should not have the same level of protection as individual political speech. But until and unless that rule changes (and that is one Constitutional amendment I would back) what you're proposing is also unconstitutional.

What about the "local only" rule? - Only contributions from within the area that is covered? Do individuals/groups from outside have a constitutional right to donate to a candidate in an election that doesn't represent them?

Political speech is a Federally protected right, in other words an incident of citizenship (sound familiar?). As long as political donations are considered political speech, a local only type of rule is a restriction on speech.

 

[goldcatt]

You're right, it's a speech issue. And again, I think that's a mistake. The political speech of organizations should not have the same level of protection as individual political speech. But until and unless that rule changes (and that is one Constitutional amendment I would back) what you're proposing is also unconstitutional.

What about the "local only" rule? - Only contributions from within the area that is covered? Do individuals/groups from outside have a constitutional right to donate to a candidate in an election that doesn't represent them?

Senators are State wide. Presidents are Country wide.

True. But Presidential elections are held on a state by state basis, so a good question would be whether a local-only rule would restrict donations to Presidential campaigns to use by the campaign's State-level campaign committee or whether they would be exempted. But since the rule would be unconstitutional in the first place, I guess the point is interesting but moot.