Latest Breaking News

Swede Atlanta

(3,596 posts)

8. I don't know if I can support this line-item veto......

Wed Feb 8, 2012, 06:38 PM

Feb 2012

As long as the legislation is clear that the President can veto individual line item(s) to make clear the portions with which he/she disagree, I can support it. But it must be understood that the legislation, so amended, must go back to the House and Senate for approval or for an override of the items so vetoed.

I do not want a unitary executive. Congressional earmarks are a mess but then we the electorate need to do a better job in who we vote for.

But we cannot let the President modify the legislation passed by Congress by striking out items that are from his/her perspective undesirable and then signing the bill into law. The amended legislation must be re-submitted and approved by Congress.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

57 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

House approves line-item veto for president [View all] maddezmom Feb 2012 OP

Some thing smells. nm rhett o rick Feb 2012 #1

That's the smell of corporate supremacist authoritarianism. Uncle Joe Feb 2012 #23

Why now, why this? for the republicons to cooperate. nm rhett o rick Feb 2012 #27

Why not? It's not a question of Republicans vs Democrats it's a question Uncle Joe Feb 2012 #43

That's what I am afraid of. But I think you got it. nm rhett o rick Feb 2012 #50

Because they are counting on a GOP Presidency. nanabugg Feb 2012 #47

No, I think post 43 has it right. nm rhett o rick Feb 2012 #51

Things have been smelling for awhile now. nt woo me with science Feb 2012 #55

I asked my forer rep many years ago rurallib Feb 2012 #2

Good for you. Ruby the Liberal Feb 2012 #7

he was defeated in 2006 by a damned good democrat rurallib Feb 2012 #42

Oh, that was beautiful! Ruby the Liberal Feb 2012 #48

he actually attacked me one day after I asked him a question rurallib Feb 2012 #52

Why now, after all this time? arcane1 Feb 2012 #3

actually, I believe that they found this unconstitutional, back in the 90s zbdent Feb 2012 #17

Yes, this held unconstitutional. amandabeech Feb 2012 #33

Clinton v. City of New York amandabeech Feb 2012 #34

I thought this was so when I heard it. mantis49 Feb 2012 #57

My understanding is Inouye isn't supportive Lone_Star_Dem Feb 2012 #4

I don't like this. Never have. Ruby the Liberal Feb 2012 #5

Hopefully kenfrequed Feb 2012 #6

I don't know if I can support this line-item veto...... Swede Atlanta Feb 2012 #8

I can support a line item veto - as long as we get there via a Constitutional amendment. Doing it 24601 Feb 2012 #13

The next question should be - what is their alterior motive? In this I do not trust them. I hope the jwirr Feb 2012 #9

And then the King said no............. Angry Dragon Feb 2012 #10

The next Bush/Cheney duo will love a line item veto. It's better than signing statements. nt jody Feb 2012 #11

They're called Rubio/McDonnell or possibly McDonnell/Rubio and they will be elected... onehandle Feb 2012 #38

He should veto it. Scuba Feb 2012 #12

Or parts of it. Orrex Feb 2012 #26

Can he line-item it to limit it to just Democratic Presidents? Scuba Feb 2012 #29

LOL boppers Feb 2012 #54

more powers for the puppet emperor, umm, president, no matter what party they be from stockholmer Feb 2012 #14

Don';t like one bit. emilyg Feb 2012 #15

they did this to clinton too tech_smythe Feb 2012 #16

I said pretty much the same thing above zbdent Feb 2012 #18

if you look at the timestamps and the posting numbers, tech_smyth's reply was before yours nilram Feb 2012 #41

said in agreement ... not as a smackdown ... zbdent Feb 2012 #45

ok, thanks, I get it now. nilram Feb 2012 #46

House wants to have its pork and eat it, too. Here is how the scam will work. McCamy Taylor Feb 2012 #19

Exactly-it makes the pres the bad guy.n/t. Scruffy1 Feb 2012 #40

spending bills only Warren Stupidity Feb 2012 #20

There does seem to be a tendency for Congress to reject its powers caraher Feb 2012 #21

The Legislative Branch abdicating their power. Old and In the Way Feb 2012 #22

i thought SCOTUS had already ruled that a no-no?? n/t NMDemDist2 Feb 2012 #24

SCOTUS can reverse itself as it did with slavery. nt jody Feb 2012 #25

Yes. Clinton v. City of New York. 6-3. nt amandabeech Feb 2012 #36

I hope the senate doesnt vote for it. cstanleytech Feb 2012 #28

So How Is This Line Item Veto Any Different DallasNE Feb 2012 #30

In this version they are trying to get around the SC objections. former9thward Feb 2012 #37

Amend the Constitution if you want a line-item veto. This is not Constitutional. NYC Liberal Feb 2012 #31

It's a bad law usrname Feb 2012 #32

Isn't this unconstitutional nineteen50 Feb 2012 #35

Line item veto WITHOUT a constitutional amendment is unconstitutional happyslug Feb 2012 #39

Yeah, What would Grimace Al Eato and Roberts have to say about the unitary executive when right now lonestarnot Feb 2012 #53

They should just amend the House rules...stop adding unrelated crap to bills as an amendment.... Evasporque Feb 2012 #44

"The House bill, offered by Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan, R-Wis..." RUMMYisFROSTED Feb 2012 #49

Timing is everything Highway61 Feb 2012 #56