Line-item veto authority won’t balance the federal budget, but it could be a useful tool in helping curb pork barrel spending. So the Senate should follow the House’s lead and give President Bush and future presidents the authority to veto provisions in a spending bill without vetoing the entire measure.
As Bush noted in calling for such authority this week, line-item vetoes would “shine the light of day on spending items that get passed in the dark of the night” and send “a healthy signal to the people that we’re going to be wise about how we spend their money.”
Posted by Phillip Brownlee
-
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in. -
Contact us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- Monkeyhawk on Republican convention thread 9/4
- Monkeyhawk on Open thread 9/4
- Jed on Is Palin taking on too much?
- Predestined on Republican convention thread 9/4
- Chas on Open thread 9/4
- Predestined on Palin more than pulled it off
- Monkeyhawk on Palin more than pulled it off
- BlueJay on Palin more than pulled it off
- Regular on Palin more than pulled it off
- BlueJay on Palin more than pulled it off
23 Comments
Funny coming from BushdaBum who has never vetoed a bill sent to him from his GOP Congress.
The last time a push was made for a line-item-veto. the Scotus ruled it un Constitutionial. .
And thinking that vetoes will curb wasteful spending is unrealistic.
Also the fact a line item veto would be used as a political whip to punish the opposite party, and members of the same party who disagree with the prez.
Also, do we really want to see him with MORE power? Maybe a President who actually showed leadership, but the current one ain’t close to that catagory.
And check out Jim Hightower’s latest commentary about the ‘privitization’ of our gov’t.It really rings true.
Writerdog is right. The Republican Congress gave the line-item veto to Clinton, but Senator Robert Byrd got upset and challenge it in court.
But it was declared Unconstitutional by a District judge and not be the SCOTUS. They actually dismissed the case on certain grounds. They did not make a ruling on its constitutionality.
With the Supreme Court packed! It should stand up now.
Ok yesterday we got a thread about how bush is badly mis using signing statements on bills and how Arlen Specter MAY seek legal redress for that.
Today a thread about granting bush a line item veto?
This admininstration has shown no difficulty drawing more and more power to itself. Its use of that power has not been responsible…..maybe even illegal.
No, a line item veto is not Constitutional and in the hands of this power corrupt administration would be destructive. If your kid is playing with matches you don’t give him a flamethrower to placate his pyromania!
Writerdog,
You are correct, sir. It was already struck down by the courts when Clinton had it.
JoeW,
Got a link for that? What you say isn’t the way I remember it. If you say it, the burden of proof is on you.
Tracy,
Where on earth do you get to read Jim Hightower? Lord knows it won’t be in the Wichita Eagle.
Did y’all see values boy today. What a load of conventional wisdumb that was!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Line_Item_Veto_Act_of_1996
ReferencesByrd, Robert (2004). Losing America. New York: W.W. Norton & Company. ISBN 0-393-32701-9.Clinton v. City of New York. Supreme Court Collection. Retrieved on July 04, 2005.Byrd v. Raines. The CPA Journal. Retrieved on July 04, 2005.Byrd v. Raines. The National Center for Public Policy Research. Retrieved on July 04, 2005.SHIELDS & GIGOT, April 10, 1997. Online NewsHour. Retrieved on July 04, 2005.
Yes, those who of you who have been wanting a King for years are now very close to getting exactly what you deserve.
Congratufuckinglations!
Looks like Georgie isn’t going to be allowed to do everything he wants after all.
Supreme Court blocks Bush, Gitmo war trialsAP - 39 minutes agoWASHINGTON - The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that President Bush overstepped his authority in ordering military war crimes trials for Guantanamo Bay detainees. The ruling, a rebuke to the administration and its aggressive anti-terror policies, was written by Justice John Paul Stevens, who said the proposed trials were illegal under U.S. law and international Geneva conventions.
(Longer version of the article at http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060629/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_guantanamo_trials_5;_ylt=AsVv_4zie3QJ3eHErtPifYs3NiUi;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl )
After the American revolution, people were happy to get rid of King George, but grumblers said to put George Washington was replacing one King George with another one.Looks as though we about to finally, after nearly 300 years, about to finally have a King George. No male heir tho, might have to give that job to Jeb.
The “Line Item Veto” is so George can pick and chose and threaten and reward those who will do or not do as they’re told.
It’s just another power grab by Karl Rove, Cheney and Rumsfeld.
Same old shit with a different coat of paint.
The “stench” is unmistakable.
Okay, Joe, thanks for the link.
However, the link shows that the Supreme Court DID rule on it and agreed it was unconstitutional by a vote of 6-3.
From the Wikipedia article, “This ruling was subsequently affirmed on June 25, 1998 by a 6-3 decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case Clinton v. City of New York. Justices Breyer, Scalia, and O’Connor dissented.”
Breyer, liberal. Scalia, conservative. Apparently, both liberals and conservatives can be FOR the line-item veto and both can be AGAINST it.
I am left-leaning myself and I am for it.
But it is bogus that Bush would make an issue of this now–he knows the Supremes have already ruled on it.
Apparently, Congress would be unable to override any line item veto?
Latest.
I’m providing cheeseburgers/fixins. Brats. Momma made cookies, don’t know what kind (she hid them). She also made pasta salad.
I’ve got about a case of Cokes, half a case of Sprite, momma made some tea and we have a few cans of lemonade. I’ve also got about a case of various light beers (confiscated from the college kids).
gster is bringing hamburger buns (with seeds)
XXX is bringing Hot Dog buns
Damoon is bringing watermelon or something.
Julie is bringing brownies/cookies.
RD is bringing a side dish.
Looks like we’ll have plenty to eat and drink!
Looking forward to seeing you all again. cell 641-6347
Hank
PS. It’s still an open invitation, if you are reading this you’re invited!
JR
What have you got against a “friendly flamethrower?”
Brown–You can go to Hightower’s web site and read his commentary, you can also have updates delivered as they come out.
I like Hightower, what a no frills, down to earth kind of wisdom.The Parsons Sun carries his stuff on a regular basis.
Bush would use line item veto power like a carrot and a stick, carrot for his loyal Republican Congressmen and Democrats who would compromise, and a stick for anyone who opposed him on anything. Don’t give the dolt more power.
Even as a staunch Democrat, I did not want Clinton to have the line-item veto, and I sure don’t want Bush to have it.God, what a mess that would be. He’s bad enough with the signing letters.
Hightower’s radio commentary may be available in Wichita soon.That’s all I can say for now:)
Bush must have a signing letter added to the constitution, he’ll follow whatever parts he deems Good for the Good of America!