Power of the Veto

[WatertheTree]

Our government was intended to have equal powers between three branches of government to provide checks and balances as a means of a defence agianst being captured by an Oligarchy.

One of the most powerfull checks is the power of the veto. By design the president is more or less a fairly weak position. The executive order was never intended to be used to legislate law, instead it was designed to command the troops. However the founders did enable the president with the power to veto any bill that is unconstitutional.

Ron Paul has already stated that he plans to veto every bill that is unconstitutional.

I cant wait, and I hope he gets a big red rubber stamp for it.

VETO

 

[rightwinger]

Look at the bright side

The only way Ron Paul gets into the White House is to take a tour

 

[WatertheTree]

He has also said he will not write law from the executive order, which would be a very sharp contrast to recent history.

Thats whats so funny about the whole situation, and why he is so 'unelectable'. He doesnt need to work with this bullshit congress to come through on most of his commitments. He just has to adhear to the constitution and the rule of law.

I hope he has good security, the last guy to face off on power like this was JFK.

 

[rightwinger]

He has also said he will not write law from the executive order, which would be a very sharp contrast to recent history.

Thats whats so funny about the whole situation, and why he is so 'unelectable'. He doesnt need to work with this bullshit congress to come through on most of his commitments. He just has to adhear to the constitution and the rule of law.

I hope he has good security, the last guy to face off on power like this was JFK.

Ron Paul can rest easy....no way will he ever get power

 

[waltky]

One way to cut out the pork and earmarks...

Lawmakers attempt variation on line-item veto
7 Dec.`11 WASHINGTON – Every year, the U.S. Department of Education spends $9 million on whaling museums earmarked in four states: Alaska, Hawaii, Massachusetts and Mississippi.

Presidents George W. Bush and Obama have proposed eliminating the program, but Congress keeps funding it. Without a line-item veto, the president must spend the money. It's the kind of spending that some in Congress hope to root out with the modification of an old idea: the line-item veto. The proposal, called "expedited rescission," gets around the legal problems that doomed the last line-item veto. The U.S. Supreme Court held in 1998 that a line-item veto is unconstitutional because the Constitution says only that the president may sign or veto a bill — not pick it apart.

The line-item bill is part of a package of 10 budget changes unveiled Wednesday by House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan, R-Wis. Other ideas: a two-year budget, more congressional oversight of spending and ending automatic inflationary increases built in to discretionary spending. Under the limited line-item veto, the president would sign the bill but could send one or two packages of spending items back to Congress. Congress would then vote on them within 45 days, and there would be no amendments or filibusters. President Obama generally supports the idea and proposed a similar measure last year. How would the president use the new powers?

Meg Reilly, a spokeswoman for the Office of Management and Budget, said she couldn't name hypothetical line items the president would send back. "But certainly anything that would qualify as an earmark or that has been identified by the administration recently as an area to reduce spending and cut government waste" could be targeted, she said. Obama asked Congress to cut $24 billion in discretionary programs in his 2012 budget.

MORE