Republicans playing politics with "line item veto" ...

[kentuck]

In 1998, the Supreme Court ruled that President Clinton could not use the line item veto because it was not constitutional. Now, just seven years later, George Bush thinks he has found a loophole around the Supreme Court decision. He now wants the Republican Congress to give him the line item veto. In reality, it is probably the other way around - the Congress wants Bush to have the line item veto. So they can escape responsibility for the reckless and criminal spending they have indulged in for the last several years. Help us out in the next election, Mr Bush, they seem to be saying. Well, Bill Thomas, the slimeball from California has just announced his intent to retire at end of this term. Other Republicans should heed his lead and follow.

[shoelace414]

1. I still haven't heard what the difference is between 1998 and todays law.

[zbdent]

2. There's a Republican president

that's about it . . .

They were all for it in 1996, when they really thought that Dole would be the one wielding the pen . . . whoops, Clinton re-elected . . . don't bother rewriting the legislation . . .

[FloridaPat]

3. Something about the items that * crosses out can go back

to congress and they can overide the pres if they want to. That way it real authority for the budget still remains with congress.

[shoelace414]

5. would it require 2/3'rds or

is it just a simple majority?

[DrGonzoLives]

14. 2/3

All veto overrides require two-thirds, unless the rules are somehow suspended, which won't happen as long as the GOP controls Congress.

[Atman]

4. Oh, that's easy...

Bush.

He simply does what he wants. Fuck court decisions. Actually, he must have another nomimee up his sleeve. He'll want this to go before a more sympathetic (read: Bought and Paid For) SCOTUS, I'd think.

[wakeme2008]

6. I say again "President Hillary will LOVE the Line Item Veto"

:evilgrin:

[Bandit]

10. Actually the Line Item Veto is a good tool

Almost every Governor has it and it keeps spending in check a lot better. I personally think it is a good tool. I am sick of them sticking some unrelated item in a must pass bill knowing it will never be vetoed. We should be behind this.

[kentuck]

11. The Supreme Court said it was unconstitutional...

How do we ignore that?

[Bandit]

13. We don't , but I have disagreed with other Extreme Court rulings

as well. Bush* vs Gore for instance. They also ruled that a President could be term limited but not Congressmen. They said term limits took a basic right away from the citizens. :crazy: That basic right doesn't seem to apply to Presidents though...

[wakeme2008]

12. While I was for it under Clinton

What we have seen under Bush is his dislike of Blue States. Think of all the "Pork" he could cut out of the yearly transportation bill, that just happens to be in Blue States.

Yes the line item veto is GOOD for most Presidents just IMHO not for this asshole.

[annabanana]

7. Oh Phooey... He has his OWN Supreme Court..

I'm sure they can devise a "work-around" for him.

[sinkingfeeling]

8. In 1998, the Supreme Court said that it would take an amendment to

the Constitution for that power to be taken from Congress and given to the Executive branch.

[stray cat]

9. President Feingold or President Clinton could use it!