Congress transfers yet more power to the executive, page 1

privacy

Pages:
ATS Members have flagged this thread 8 times

Topic started on 9-2-2012 @ 01:35 AM by Vitchilo

What the hell.... it has not yet passed the senate, but it DID pass the house...

House Votes To Give Obama Power Of Line-Item Veto

House Republicans put aside their usual antipathy toward President Barack Obama on Wednesday to give the president, and his successors, the line-item veto, a constitutionally questionable power over the purse that long has been sought by presidents of both parties.

A minority of Democrats joined in casting a 254-173 vote in favor of allowing the president to pick out specific items in spending bills for elimination. Currently, the chief executive must sign or veto spending bills in their entirety.

Apparently it's ``constitutional`` the way they have written it. It's not ``really`` a line-item veto...

How it would work : Congress passes bill. President opposes certain parts of it, tells it to congress. Said sections are back in congress for a quick vote.

Me thinks it's a ploy by the congress critters to put all the blame on the president when funding gets cut down the line.

Bill passes with lots of pork. President vetoes, says remove that, congressmen to voters : see, the president is against our state!

It's a ploy by republicans to blame Obama... to continue the fake illusion that there's a difference between parties...

They tried that BS in the past... by a republican congress during Clinton...

In 1996, a Republican-controlled Congress succeeded in giving line-item veto authority to another Democratic president, Bill Clinton. He exercised that authority 82 times, and although Congress overrode his veto in 38 instances, the moves saved the government almost $2 billion.

And the Supreme Court ruled it unconstitutional.

But in 1998, on a 6-3 vote, the Supreme Court ruled that the law was unconstitutional, saying it violated the principle that Congress, and not the executive branch, holds the power of the purse.

But this time it's constitutional since it's not REALLY a line-item veto.

I think this whole thing is a ploy by the republicans to blame everything on the president.

(Sorry about all the edits)

edit on 9-2-2012 by Vitchilo because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 9-2-2012 @ 01:45 AM by bekod

reply to post by Vitchilo

I would say, SCOTUS rules that it's constitutional, and giving the power to POTUS is long over due, all hail king Obama, for he is the mighty one of all time . Bow down and kneel when saying that

reply posted on 9-2-2012 @ 01:47 AM by Wrabbit2000

I really think this is a good idea personally. Whatever trouble Obama can cause with it will be more than countered by the damage prevented in a Pelosi type Congress (extreme) with..say a Ron Paul or other conservative type President. This doesn't let the President do new things, just stop very specific things from being done out of Congress. I think that distinction makes all the difference for it being a power that actually is long over due, regardless of who is President.

Just my own two cents.

reply posted on 9-2-2012 @ 01:54 AM by bekod

for me it would be alright if it was used to end the mind numbing disagreements that go on take the 2% tax reduction , the POTUS would say "ok, you will not act I will 2% tax reduction now in effect as by EO" or like the super 12 no out come EO applys you had your chance now it is my turn , or you want 15% pay raise i think not EO says so EO= executive order

reply posted on 9-2-2012 @ 02:35 AM by intrptr

Y'all bite your tongues. Bills are usually weighed heavy on one side anyway, but some little bits that help the little guy usually get attached. Last gasp of helping the people along with their "pork barrel' funding. Now we can hope to veto that as well. You know that is why they wanna do it. To appear to pass a bill funding the military (and Veterans funding), and it gets "passed" and then whoops!, scratch out those veterans aid packages after the fact.

reply posted on 9-2-2012 @ 02:53 AM by Trueman

With all that power added, no excuses to be a bad president.

reply posted on 9-2-2012 @ 08:39 AM by xuenchen

It might be a plot to get specific targeted special spending to pass without exposure.

They could load up a "special interest project" hidden within a bill, and place some other inflated spending in there so the POTUS can look like He's saving the day when He chops it off while leaving the intended big money spending alone !!

In the meantime, what is this costing us ?

Classic magic.

reply posted on 9-2-2012 @ 08:51 AM by Open_Minded Skeptic

I must admit to being a little ambivalent about the line item veto for pres...

However, given that the current House has passed this, I am TOTALLY against it. Bohner and his fellow clowns have some non-stated goal, here, whose intent is to screw the majority of the US population, and Obama if they can manage it.

Something smells really rotten here.

reply posted on 9-2-2012 @ 08:55 AM by LittleBlackEagle

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
I really think this is a good idea personally. Whatever trouble Obama can cause with it will be more than countered by the damage prevented in a Pelosi type Congress (extreme) with..say a Ron Paul or other conservative type President. This doesn't let the President do new things, just stop very specific things from being done out of Congress. I think that distinction makes all the difference for it being a power that actually is long over due, regardless of who is President.

Just my own two cents.

i have to agree and surprisingly in this age of mind boggling bills that pass, this one seems decent. i think a huge part of the bills that go through have been burdened with pork and deceiving items, just so it gets through.

reply posted on 9-2-2012 @ 08:59 AM by DenyObfuscation

Originally posted by bekod
for me it would be alright if it was used to end the mind numbing disagreements that go on take the 2% tax reduction , the POTUS would say "ok, you will not act I will 2% tax reduction now in effect as by EO" or like the super 12 no out come EO applys you had your chance now it is my turn , or you want 15% pay raise i think not EO says so EO= executive order

Is POTUS A typo? Your opinion on this matter leads me to believe you meant DOTUS.
D=Dictator

Regardless of who is in power, advocating authority for any President to write their own laws is bad news.

reply posted on 9-2-2012 @ 10:00 AM by xuenchen

Originally posted by Open_Minded Skeptic
I must admit to being a little ambivalent about the line item veto for pres...

However, given that the current House has passed this, I am TOTALLY against it. Bohner and his fellow clowns have some non-stated goal, here, whose intent is to screw the majority of the US population, and Obama if they can manage it.

Something smells really rotten here.

They are setting up for the next Repub POTUS.

Think about it.

A Repub Congress won't allow a Dem POTUS to get much anyway.

It's a classic.

reply posted on 9-2-2012 @ 12:39 PM by bekod

reply to post by DenyObfuscation

no it is not , P for Puppet if you must know, if the pres requested it then yes Dictator would fit but seeing as the Congress suggested it making a Pres A Puppet to them then yes POTUS it is

reply posted on 9-2-2012 @ 01:15 PM by DenyObfuscation

Originally posted by bekod
reply to post by DenyObfuscation

no it is not , P for Puppet if you must know, if the pres requested it then yes Dictator would fit but seeing as the Congress suggested it making a Pres A Puppet to them then yes POTUS it is

Now your talking about line item veto and I agree with you. Your original post advocated governing by EO. See the difference?

reply posted on 9-2-2012 @ 02:13 PM by bekod

reply to post by DenyObfuscation

my simple mind thinks this way, a Pres that does not sign or signs a doc, is using EO power, is he not?

reply posted on 9-2-2012 @ 02:34 PM by DenyObfuscation

reply to post by bekod

Depends on the doc. Line item veto gives POTUS the ability to veto specific portions of approved Congressional legislatation without vetoing the entire bill. EO originates from POTUS, not Congress.

reply posted on 9-2-2012 @ 02:44 PM by Dreamwatcher

I do not know where I sit on this issue.

However, 44 states have Governor line item veto power and it doesn't seem like those state have come to a fiery end.

Different on a Federal level, maybe, but then again doesn't the power of the "Executive Order" pretty much give the President the same power anyway?

Do not get me wrong, I have extreme suspicion of all the motivations behind Congress, and of the other two branches of Federal government.

Pages: ^^TOP^^