Twelve years ago no one could ever have imagined that a lunatic would inhabit the White House. Of course they have changed their minds, more likely that they take powers away than give the lunatic in chief more.

Exaclty the same way the republicans changed their mind on term limits, balanced budgets and being honest.

Expect a politician to promise the moon to get elected.

Didn't we already have a ruling from the SCOTUS saying that a line item veto would concentrate too much power in the executive branch?

It is the Congress' duty to pass the bills for approval or veto in whole by the POTUS ( I typoed PUTZ - appropriate these days). It is up to the legislative and executive branch to work together to get an acceptable bill passed.

But in the era of "sound byte" governance don't hold your breath.

It is still unconstitutional.

so b........why is it unconstitutional? and is there something in the state consitutions which make it possible for states to have this.......you know all those budget balanced....pay as you go places like texas......just wondering....


but isnt it something that dems are against something that would REALLY get rid of all the pork and also figures that TWELVE YEARS ago......byrd and others were for it.....back when a dem was in the white house.........

and of course as I scroll back I see jimmy's post......
that sort of makes sense, but then when there is a veto, should it be harder or easier to override it?

and isnt this something that could be used to help the deficit and the debt?

Boy, how come righties cannot do their own research?

"In a majority opinion written by Justice John Paul Stevens, the Court ruled that because the Act allowed the President to unilaterally amend or repeal parts of duly enacted statutes by using line-item cancellations, it violated the Presentment clause of the Constitution[3], which outlines a specific practice for enacting a statute. The Court construed the silence of the Constitution on the subject of such unilateral Presidential action as equivalent to "an express prohibition", agreeing with historical material that supported the conclusion that statutes may only be enacted "in accord with a single, finely wrought and exhaustively considered, procedure"[4], and that a bill must be approved or rejected by the President in its entirety."


Is it just laziness?

Yes, the whole purpose of the veto is to reduce the deficit.

But the specific rules of the Constitution require the bill to be passed or vetoed in entirety. I guess the state Constitution do not have a similiar requirement or they were amended.

line item was ok when byrds party was in the white house -but now the worm has turned -fear is the line item veto would put the pork of the opposition party in jeopardy-how much of the budget is pork the president has to swallow to get key bills past
jasman

And so, based on Chief Justice John Paul Stevens ruling, what the Shrub is doing currently...his 'signing statements'...are equally unconstitutional, correct? So...why isn't he being called on this?! Oh, I forgot...there's so much more he has been screwing with, this is just one more bite out of the Constitution and it's hard to keep track. Two more years? The Constitution will never survive Shrub & Co at this rate.

or it might also be that like in the state of texas the lt. governor has as much if not more power.........
IF that is the real concern....or is the concern now that we are talking about a republican president and not a democratic one?????????

Now you're only gunning to be as hypocritical?

Posted by J_O_E at 2007-01-23 10:39 AM | Reply

Well just following the right wing logic that "both parties are corrupt" is a defense when a republicant gets caught with his hand in the cookie jar.

Dawnglo,

The belief that the signing statements are unconstitutional has to be challenged in court before the SCOTUS can rule I believe.

In order for that to happen, Bushling needs to violate one of these laws he signed with a signing statement.

I know he attached one to the bill requiring the FEMA director to have disaster management experience that states basically "unless the president decides otherwise". I don't know if the FEMA director has been replaced under the new laws and what damages if any can be substantiated by the signing statement.

Exempting one branch of government from duly passed legislation on it's face should be Unconstitutional as it will concentrate too much power in the executive branch.

But then again Bushling felt that it would be alot easier if it were a dictatorship..... as long as he was the dictator.

"Are you any better than the republicans"

It would be difficult to sink to their level, but not impossible.

I watched the campaign here in Missouri between McCaskill and Talent. The Repubs pulled out all the stops. Talent had to drop an ad that was discredited, and then another ad claimed that McCaskill as auditor had stopped doing audits on nursing homes for personal gain when a Repub governor had cut the funding for those audits.

In the race to bottom the Repubs have won.

And I think the Dems are trying not to follow them. There's some new blood that doesn't go for that stuff.

BTW, what's with the new handle?

This just shows that the only power who wants small government is the party out of power. The line item veto is only good when you are the minority.

The gang and the government no different

I can't let that stop me

"Creating a second account to circumvent these rules will result in a permanent loss of account privileges."

from the Moderation policy

Perhaps you can find a good lawyer?

Twelve years ago no one could ever have imagined that a lunatic would inhabit the White House. Of course they have changed their minds, more likely that they take powers away than give the lunatic in chief more.

Posted by danni

12 years ago there was a lunatic in the White House. The only difference was he was going after the second amendment.

Awwwww.... cranky baby.

There has never been anything other than a lunatic in the White House. YOu have to be insane to want that job in the first place and even crazier to go through what it takes to win it.

Perhaps you can find a good lawyer?





Posted by Corky at 2007-01-23 11:37 AM | Reply


What do you call 1,000 lawyers laying at the bottom of the ocean?










A good start.

What do you call a lawyer who can't win a case?

Mr. President.

What do you call a lawyer who circumvents the rules here?

Typical.

OK What do you have when you have a lawyer up to his neck in concrete?

Not enough concrete.

"byrd and others were for it.....back when a dem was in the white house........."
Posted by bushlovertwo at 2007-01-23 10:25 AM

YEAH! One lies (Byrd was actually against it then too) and totally concocts a false story ------ and the mindless minions quickly repeats the lie (see below)
"line item was ok when byrds party was in the white house"
Posted by newjasman at 2007-01-23 10:38 AM

Why can't you people be truthful? Oh yeah, that's right --- being truthful and honest wont help you!

Is it just laziness?

Posted by JimmyWallback at 2007-01-23 10:30 AM | Reply

It's not laziness, it is just bloodymindedness.

Joey - do you agree that a line-item veto is unconstitutional, no matter which party is in the White House?

Assuming you have student loans, do you consider lowering the interest rate on those loans a tax break?

"Perhaps you can find a good lawyer?"

Actually anyone can plea mea culpa.

And it's shorter than nolo contendere.

Joe,

On the back end it will cost less overall to attend college. The brilliant minds in Washington want to keep that consumption gravy train rolling, get everyone out spending every last dime they have on crap they don't need. Lower debt service costs will do that.

Joey - so your answer to:

(Mike, what is better about democrats than republicans?)
...
Are they lowering taxes?

Posted by J_O_E at 2007-01-23 11:04 AM | Reply"

is YES?

""12 years ago there was a lunatic in the White House. The only difference was he was going after the second amendment.""

OMG!!!!
The second amendment. I forgot about the idiots in this country who base their whole lives around their guns. Since I never associate with such trash I sometimes forget they exist.
Gun nuts....psychos in remission.

Gun nuts....psychos in remission.

Posted by danni at 2007-01-23 12:27 PM

No wonder you support Obama. He is as ignorant about the 2nd amendment as you.

Gun nuts....psychos in remission.

Posted by danni

Typical lib reaction. You have no arguement so call us names.

Don't you know this is national no name calling week?

""Typical lib reaction. You have no arguement so call us names.""

About guns???
There are tons of arguments but why waste the time arguing with people who are emotionally dependent upon their guns. They can't argue dispassionately or even logically. I stand by my earlier description of gun nuts, BTW, I don't consider everyone with a gun to be a nut.
But...the ones with many guns, automatic weapons, etc. are NUTS. I don't associate with them, when I find out that someone I do associate is like that they are excommunicated from me and my circle. Funny thing, no one in my circle of friends has ever been shot, nor our kids.

The ones who believe the 2nd amendment literally means anybody can have any sort of arms, you mean, Danni.

It doesn't.

What I mean is that if 'GUN CONTROL is a major issue to anyone right now then I suggest they are nuts. There are so many more important issues right now that it makes the perpetual whining about guns seem ridiculous.

Joey,
And you are?

Uh-oh!!!

I'll sit on my condescending cloud and take pot shots down on the crowd and you'll remember me, J O E, because I am the lawyer want to be who is unable to follow the rules.

Danni,

The single most important thing that has kept this government at bay and kept the people ruling is the right to have arms, guns. Period.

I find it funny that you being such a supporter for the constitution and its following but yet wish control on the item that surely will keep the RNC at bay.

Even if the line item veto were constitutional -- which it isn't -- the very last person who could be trusted to use it fairly and wisely is GWB.

but isnt it something that dems are against something that would REALLY get rid of all the pork and also figures that TWELVE YEARS ago......byrd and others were for it.....back when a dem was in the white house.........

Posted by bushlovertwo at 2007-01-23 10:25 AM | Reply | Flag:

That was before a lunatic was in the WH. Nothing to do with left or right. Dubya is a loon. It's like giving Cheney a gun....BLAMMO!!!

The single most important thing that has kept this government at bay and kept the people ruling is the right to have arms, guns. Period.

...

Posted by Crassus at 2007-01-23 01:49 PM | Reply

How right you are, Crassus. No country that ever had a completely armed populace was ever taken over by a corrupt government.

Hitler and the rest of history's villans had always disarmed their citizens before taking over. I've never shot a gun but I joined the NRA because I believe in their standing up against any and all attempts to disarm our citizens. And that also includes the NRA's "NO gun registration" stance because all you need is one corrupt government, or president who signs an executive order, demanding collection of everyone's gun(s) once they know who owns one and where you live. That's why an armed populace is the best protection against government corruption and takeover.

Madison wrote the second amendment.

The Constitution preserves the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation where the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.
-James Madison

The advancement and diffusion of knowledge is the only guardian of true liberty.
-James Madison

Learned Institutions ought to be favorite objects with every free people. They throw that light over the public mind which is the best security against crafty and dangerous encroachments on the public liberty.
-James Madison

Liberty may be endangered by the abuse of liberty, but also by the abuse of power.
-James Madison

No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare.
-James Madison

Of all the enemies of public liberty, war is perhaps the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ of every other.
-James Madison

How right you are, Crassus. No country that ever had a completely armed populace was ever taken over by a corrupt government.

And not so easily by a foreign government. Our military is looking more and more like a complete waste of money.

Our military is exactly what Ike told us it would be.