Where's the downside? Is it that some of the fat will still be approved by the President before the legislature gets to look at each item individually?
The reason that irrelevant issues can be tagged onto bills is to protect the minority party and prevent and opportunity for the creation of a uni-party government through legislation. The downside to our president's praposal is that it ****s on minority rights in the legislature.
The reason that irrelevant issues can be tagged onto bills is to protect the minority party ...
This message brought to you by the Robert Byrd Federal Building, housed in historic Robert Byrd Government Park, at the corners of Robert Byrd Way and Robert Byrd Road.
[...] it seems that this is what the SCOTUS was for. Not deciding an abortion and prayer in schools (or even more absurdly, who should get an old man's money) but all laws that may violate the Constitution?
I don't see the seperation here. Congress (or states) pass a law that says abortion is illegal. The SCOTUS says, "That law is unconstitutional and is stricken." Abortion stays legal. The Supreme Court is not legislating, they're evaluating legislation. That's all they ever do.
Quote from Mortal Wombat »
That's what its intent was at first, yes. But somewhere down the road, I don't know when, the Court mutated into a kind of arm of the legislative branch, deciding what is legal and what isn't. I think it started with that Supreme Court case back in the first decade of the 1800s that decided judicial precedence that started the court down that path.
First off, the courts never, ever decide what is legal or not, they decide whether a law contradicts the Constitution. That's a large distinction.
Second, the case you are thinking of is Marbury v. Madison, in 1803. I would hardly qualify 14 years after the Constitution went into effect as "somewhere down the road", especially when a good number of the original framers were involved in the debate. There is enough evidence to confidently determine that the power of judicial review implied in Article III of the Constitution was the intent of the framers.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The Golden Rule of forums: If you're going to be rude, be right. If you might be wrong, be polite.
This message brought to you by the Robert Byrd Federal Building, housed in historic Robert Byrd Government Park, at the corners of Robert Byrd Way and Robert Byrd Road.
I like the focusing on the powerful Democrat when, for example, third parties put out lists that feature the 13 most corrupt members of Congress and something like 11 of them are Republican.
And again, it's not a party issue, it's a seperation of powers issue. In the same way Bush cannot authorize warrantless wiretapping against Americans because he is not a member of the judicial branch no president can alter legislation on this level because it is a power granted to the legislature and not the executive.
And again, it's not a party issue, it's a seperation of powers issue. In the same way Bush cannot authorize warrantless wiretapping against Americans because he is not a member of the judicial branch no president can alter legislation on this level because it is a power granted to the legislature and not the executive.
But it is a party issue as well as a seperation-of-powers issue. The reason that irrelivent lines are added to bills is because it's the only way these measures will be passed since they couldn't be passed as their own legislation. This way, both "sides" get a at least a little bit of what they want.
But it is a party issue as well as a seperation-of-powers issue. The reason that irrelivent lines are added to bills is because it's the only way these measures will be passed since they couldn't be passed as their own legislation. This way, both "sides" get a at least a little bit of what they want.
You misunderstood what I meant by party issue. I meant this isn't "wrong" because Bush or the Republicans want it, it's wrong because it is wrong. It's wrong when Clinton wanted it and it's wrong now that Bush wants it.
And both sides do not get a "little bit of what they want." Whoever has the presidency essentially gets to completely dictate legislation making the president not just POTUS but POTUSCongress and POTUSSenate, which he is not. He has nowhere near those kind of legislative powers. Then, you add the presidency to a majority and you not only get to decide what legislation means but your party is deciding the central purpose of the legislation anyways.
There is nothing wrong with a majority pushing through testy legislation, so long as it is legal and gets sufficient votes. What is wrong is horrifically violated the most basic premises of what an individual officer of the US Government can do to turn what was a fairly voted on piece of legislation into what one person or side wants.
You misunderstood what I meant by party issue. I meant this isn't "wrong" because Bush or the Republicans want it, it's wrong because it is wrong. It's wrong when Clinton wanted it and it's wrong now that Bush wants it.
And both sides do not get a "little bit of what they want." Whoever has the presidency essentially gets to completely dictate legislation making the president not just POTUS but POTUSCongress and POTUSSenate, which he is not. He has nowhere near those kind of legislative powers. Then, you add the presidency to a majority and you not only get to decide what legislation means but your party is deciding the central purpose of the legislation anyways.
There is nothing wrong with a majority pushing through testy legislation, so long as it is legal and gets sufficient votes. What is wrong is horrifically violated the most basic premises of what an individual officer of the US Government can do to turn what was a fairly voted on piece of legislation into what one person or side wants.
I agree with you. "This," was supposed to reffer to added-irrelivent-lines in legislation, not line-item veto. I should take grammar lessons.
Still, they are pointless lines of legislation, just a different form than we are used to seeing. American politics is more traditionally "More people think X than Y, therefore X is now true and lawful." What this style of politics is (and a line-item veto would kill) is what you see in legislatures like Israel, where no one specific group holds a majority so you must balance any given bill to garner the approval of enough different groups.
You misunderstood what I meant by party issue. I meant this isn't "wrong" because Bush or the Republicans want it, it's wrong because it is wrong. It's wrong when Clinton wanted it and it's wrong now that Bush wants it.
Exactly. This isn't a power I'd want a Democrat to have, so it's probably a bad idea.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Quote from ljossberir »
Prizm is the key to the greatness of the US!
Quote from Phyrexian »
If hefner was a rich, gay, playboy and had hot steamy sex with hot guys would you choose him? Of course not, mainly because im a straight male and find that stuff gross.
Stand by my side should I fight
Strengthen my steel should I falter
Smite my back should I flee
Save my soul should I fall
Official Recovering World of Warcraft Addict of The Ivory Tower
This message brought to you by the Robert Byrd Federal Building, housed in historic Robert Byrd Government Park, at the corners of Robert Byrd Way and Robert Byrd Road.
As a native West Virginian, I take absolutely no offense by that statement whatsoever.
Especially because a scholarship in his name helped put me through college.
Quote from Stax »
What is wrong is horrifically violated the most basic premises of what an individual officer of the US Government can do to turn what was a fairly voted on piece of legislation into what one person or side wants.
While we can always hope that such a power would be used responsibly, yeah, that's pretty much what it comes down to regardless of which political party has their guy in the Oval Office.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I am no longer on MTGS staff, so please don't contact me asking me to do staff things. :|
The reason line-item vetoes are even suggested by presidents are calls from both sides for them, usually from the "waste less money" crowd. I don't see it as the powergrab others see it.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"I never allowed my schooling to interfere with my education" -Mark Twain
Quote from hybrid life »
The war is for oil..its one of the ways to make this huge operation worthwhile. People care more about lower gas prices than iraqis anyway.
What others say about me:
Quote from JayC »
You're obviously an ignorant conservative. I blame your hill-billy Mom and Dad.
It would be legal since Congress would be giving him the veto power. The SCOTUS strikes down usurpations of a individual branch's power by another, not the voluntary transfer of power.
My concern is that it would put judicial review powers in the hands of the president, thus negating the judiciary altogether (and by extension, the legislative branch), thus making GWB 66.6% of the federal government. That would be a shatteringly stupid move for congress to take.
Help has come in the form of a bit of basic algebra. I feel that it'll shed some light on your problem here.
Basically:
S + T = W
...S in this case stands for 'spam' and the T stands for 'light trolling'. And the W? That stands for 'Warning'. I love math. -- {mikeyG}
It would be legal since Congress would be giving him the veto power. The SCOTUS strikes down usurpations of a individual branch's power by another, not the voluntary transfer of power.
The power is determined Constitutionally, and if they can't get a flag burning amendment passed in an election year they can't get a procedural one passed.
Oh, it's for the budget. Who cares.
Because the budget controls absolutely everything in American government? The enforcement of any law passed can simply have it's funding removed with this law, making it as though the law was never passed?
Because the budget controls absolutely everything in American government? The enforcement of any law passed can simply have it's funding removed with this law, making it as though the law was never passed?
I realize that. I was a bit more concerned when I thought that the line-item veto applied to everything.
Help has come in the form of a bit of basic algebra. I feel that it'll shed some light on your problem here.
Basically:
S + T = W
...S in this case stands for 'spam' and the T stands for 'light trolling'. And the W? That stands for 'Warning'. I love math. -- {mikeyG}
I realize that. I was a bit more concerned when I thought that the line-item veto applied to everything.
And my point is that the budget controls so much of the government that this veto power still basically applies to everything. Outside of the most fundamental rights, any program can just have it's funding cut and be made toothless.
Just out of curiosity: do you think that limiting the proposed line-item veto to the budget was an attempt to disguise the veto's power and draw less negative attention to it? Part of me would not be suprised, but then part of me thinks that while the American people might not neccessary catch on there's no way you could sneak something like that under Congress' radar. I'm just curious as to your take on it.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The Golden Rule of forums: If you're going to be rude, be right. If you might be wrong, be polite.
** Current New Favorite Person™: Mallory Archer
She knows why.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
The reason that irrelevant issues can be tagged onto bills is to protect the minority party and prevent and opportunity for the creation of a uni-party government through legislation. The downside to our president's praposal is that it ****s on minority rights in the legislature.
This message brought to you by the Robert Byrd Federal Building, housed in historic Robert Byrd Government Park, at the corners of Robert Byrd Way and Robert Byrd Road.
My Eternal Cube on CubeTutor| |My Reject Rare Cube on CubeTutor| |My Peasant Cube on CubeTutor
I used to write for MTGS, including Cranial Insertion and cube articles. Good on you if you can find those after the upgrade.
I don't see the seperation here. Congress (or states) pass a law that says abortion is illegal. The SCOTUS says, "That law is unconstitutional and is stricken." Abortion stays legal. The Supreme Court is not legislating, they're evaluating legislation. That's all they ever do.
First off, the courts never, ever decide what is legal or not, they decide whether a law contradicts the Constitution. That's a large distinction.
Second, the case you are thinking of is Marbury v. Madison, in 1803. I would hardly qualify 14 years after the Constitution went into effect as "somewhere down the road", especially when a good number of the original framers were involved in the debate. There is enough evidence to confidently determine that the power of judicial review implied in Article III of the Constitution was the intent of the framers.
Current New Favorite Person™: Mallory Archer
She knows why.
I like the focusing on the powerful Democrat when, for example, third parties put out lists that feature the 13 most corrupt members of Congress and something like 11 of them are Republican.
And again, it's not a party issue, it's a seperation of powers issue. In the same way Bush cannot authorize warrantless wiretapping against Americans because he is not a member of the judicial branch no president can alter legislation on this level because it is a power granted to the legislature and not the executive.
But it is a party issue as well as a seperation-of-powers issue. The reason that irrelivent lines are added to bills is because it's the only way these measures will be passed since they couldn't be passed as their own legislation. This way, both "sides" get a at least a little bit of what they want.
You misunderstood what I meant by party issue. I meant this isn't "wrong" because Bush or the Republicans want it, it's wrong because it is wrong. It's wrong when Clinton wanted it and it's wrong now that Bush wants it.
And both sides do not get a "little bit of what they want." Whoever has the presidency essentially gets to completely dictate legislation making the president not just POTUS but POTUSCongress and POTUSSenate, which he is not. He has nowhere near those kind of legislative powers. Then, you add the presidency to a majority and you not only get to decide what legislation means but your party is deciding the central purpose of the legislation anyways.
There is nothing wrong with a majority pushing through testy legislation, so long as it is legal and gets sufficient votes. What is wrong is horrifically violated the most basic premises of what an individual officer of the US Government can do to turn what was a fairly voted on piece of legislation into what one person or side wants.
I agree with you. "This," was supposed to reffer to added-irrelivent-lines in legislation, not line-item veto. I should take grammar lessons.
Still, they are pointless lines of legislation, just a different form than we are used to seeing. American politics is more traditionally "More people think X than Y, therefore X is now true and lawful." What this style of politics is (and a line-item veto would kill) is what you see in legislatures like Israel, where no one specific group holds a majority so you must balance any given bill to garner the approval of enough different groups.
Exactly. This isn't a power I'd want a Democrat to have, so it's probably a bad idea.
Strengthen my steel should I falter
Smite my back should I flee
Save my soul should I fall
Official Recovering World of Warcraft Addict of The Ivory Tower
As a native West Virginian, I take absolutely no offense by that statement whatsoever.
Especially because a scholarship in his name helped put me through college.
While we can always hope that such a power would be used responsibly, yeah, that's pretty much what it comes down to regardless of which political party has their guy in the Oval Office.
What others say about me:
Sven Dostei
Unofficial Official arrogant teenage elitist of The Ivory Tower
My concern is that it would put judicial review powers in the hands of the president, thus negating the judiciary altogether (and by extension, the legislative branch), thus making GWB 66.6% of the federal government. That would be a shatteringly stupid move for congress to take.
Edit: Oh, it's for the budget. Who cares.
Help has come in the form of a bit of basic algebra. I feel that it'll shed some light on your problem here.
Basically:
S + T = W
...S in this case stands for 'spam' and the T stands for 'light trolling'. And the W? That stands for 'Warning'. I love math. -- {mikeyG}
The power is determined Constitutionally, and if they can't get a flag burning amendment passed in an election year they can't get a procedural one passed.
Because the budget controls absolutely everything in American government? The enforcement of any law passed can simply have it's funding removed with this law, making it as though the law was never passed?
I realize that. I was a bit more concerned when I thought that the line-item veto applied to everything.
Help has come in the form of a bit of basic algebra. I feel that it'll shed some light on your problem here.
Basically:
S + T = W
...S in this case stands for 'spam' and the T stands for 'light trolling'. And the W? That stands for 'Warning'. I love math. -- {mikeyG}
And my point is that the budget controls so much of the government that this veto power still basically applies to everything. Outside of the most fundamental rights, any program can just have it's funding cut and be made toothless.
Current New Favorite Person™: Mallory Archer
She knows why.