Wry Catcher
Diamond Member
- Banned
- #1
Last edited:
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
No
It gives too much power to the President.
No
It gives too much power to the President.
The Congress would continue to have the authority to override the President; and, since any radical changes will be temporary, it would not necessarily have a long term effect.
No. We have separation of powers by design.
No
It gives too much power to the President.
The Congress would continue to have the authority to override the President; and, since any radical changes will be temporary, it would not necessarily have a long term effect.
it's been repeatedly found to be unconstitutional.
Background info on the line-item veto:
Line Item Veto Act of 1996 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Background info on the line-item veto:
Line Item Veto Act of 1996 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
He can't even manage a check book and you want him to have line-item veto authority?
Pull your mouth off his ass for a moment and smell some fresh air.
Background info on the line-item veto:
Line Item Veto Act of 1996 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
He can't even manage a check book and you want him to have line-item veto authority?
Pull your mouth off his ass for a moment and smell some fresh air.
Usually I ignore your ignorant, profane and bigoted bullshit but for once I'll make an effort to edify a fool, though that effort will likely be worthless; others however may benefit.
Putting the onus on the POTUS provides a clear and comprehensive measure of the man seated in the Oval Office. No longer can any executive or their surrogate place the blame on a Congress, lobbyists or the other party - unless those items vetoed are overridden. In short, we will know where the buck stops and who stopped it.
No
It gives too much power to the President.
The Congress would continue to have the authority to override the President; and, since any radical changes will be temporary, it would not necessarily have a long term effect.
it's been repeatedly found to be unconstitutional.
Background info on the line-item veto:
Line Item Veto Act of 1996 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Congress would continue to have the authority to override the President; and, since any radical changes will be temporary, it would not necessarily have a long term effect.
it's been repeatedly found to be unconstitutional.
I suppose Wry's OP is premised on the notion "IF WE HAD A VOTE ON WHETHER OR NOT TO AMEND THE CONSTITUTION."
it's been repeatedly found to be unconstitutional.
I suppose Wry's OP is premised on the notion "IF WE HAD A VOTE ON WHETHER OR NOT TO AMEND THE CONSTITUTION."
Yep. I wonder, do you think the founders might have provided such a power to the Executive if they had the prescience to see how the Congress acts?
The only thing the line-item veto would accomplish is to transfer power from Congress to the President. Lobbying efforts would focus on a single political animal rather than 535 of them. The Presidents ability to reward his special interest constituencies would be enhanced while Congresss ability would be diminished.
I suppose Wry's OP is premised on the notion "IF WE HAD A VOTE ON WHETHER OR NOT TO AMEND THE CONSTITUTION."
Yep. I wonder, do you think the founders might have provided such a power to the Executive if they had the prescience to see how the Congress acts?
If they had the ability to see how congress would ignore the Constitution and constantly getaway with it, they might have abandoned the entire effort.