Monday, February 13, 2012

Line-item veto

The latest scheme that the House of Representatives came up with to delegate their power-of-the-purse responsibilities is the line-item veto. This essentially allows the President to “rescind all or part of any dollar amount of funding for discretionary spending items in enacted appropriations bills.” The House passed its line-item veto bill (H.R. 3521) on February 8 by 254-173. The Senate is expected to take action on its line-item veto bill soon, most likely by trying to attach the bill to a “must-pass” piece of legislation.

Wait a minute! Doesn’t the Constitution (Article 1, Section 7) grant the power of enacting laws that raise revenue to the House of Representatives? The power the President has is merely to sign it or veto it. He doesn’t get the option to cross anything out to fit his fancy.

A similar line-item veto law was passed when Clinton was president. That one was found to be unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. So this time around, the current line-item veto bill includes a provision that Congress has the power to disapprove any presidential line-item vetoes.

Still, even with Congress retaining the power to disapprove line-item vetoes, why would the House want to give up some of its constitutionally vested powers and further upset the checks and balances of power among the three branches of government? Surely this must be a ploy by Democratic congressmen to grab more power for President Obama. However, it was sponsored by Republican Representative Paul Ryan and Democratic Representative Chis Van Hollen, and only opposed by 41 Republicans.
More here from The New American

*****

Fucking politicians are all the same - say one thing to get elected and then do all they can to hold onto their cushy jobs. They're nothing but Obama's coffee bitches, fucking punks.

6 comments:

Toaster 802 said...

Fucking politicians are all the same - say one thing to get elected and then do all they can to hold onto their cushy jobs. They're nothing but Obama's coffee bitches, fucking punks.

Your right, they are all the same. The only difference is how the money is spent.

dhanna59 said...

Ken, go to III patriots for flag update. D.

Glenn B said...

As I remember, and the Devil knows my memory is not worth much lately, almost every Republican president in my lifetime also was in favor of line item veto. I can see it being a good thing to have, so as to cut out not so much this line or that, but things that have been added onto a bill, such as a "must pass bill" of which you spoke. That is how a lot of the bullshit legislation gets passsed in Congress and is then signed by the president. That is because a 'must pass bill' has another bill or piece of legislation added to it by some arsehat congressman and then the president's (generic, not meaning Obama) veto of the whole bill would likely result in his looking like a piece of crap because the original bill was a 'must pass'. Thus he would lose political favor so he passes the bill.

Of course, it may not actually be constitutional and if not it should not pass or be upheld by the courts.

Funny, when Republicans wanted it, it was fought against vehemently by Demoncrats! Now they want it.

All the best,
Glenn B

dhanna59 said...

@ GlennB, you remember well Patriot. well versed and stated, just goes to show an elementary degree in readin,writin n' rithmetic will let you know what a fraud our gubminnt is...

Brock Townsend said...

The last article I read stated that the Senate won't take up the bill anyway.

Houston (aka) Tots said...

I wouldn't mind a line item veto so much if it was really used to stop riders from being put on to bill that were important. The problem is the idiot in chief just ignores what he doesn't agree with anyway.

I have no idea what the idiots in Congress are thinking. Just wait until they are COMPLETELY irrelevant.

Not far to go.