This years Christmas present from our government - Page 2
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 14 to 20 of 20
  1. #14
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    6,876
    Quote Originally Posted by kirbinster View Post
    Its about time for Congress to stop these wasteful bills and only be allowed to pass bills that are about one issue at a time. Further, the president should have a line item veto to stop this crap if congress won't.
    One issue at a time? Well why would anyone vote for a bill that would help out someone else if they did not get any benefit for their constituents from it?

  2. #15
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    NJ
    Posts
    394
    Quote Originally Posted by printer2 View Post
    One issue at a time? Well why would anyone vote for a bill that would help out someone else if they did not get any benefit for their constituents from it?
    That's a very simple one, they should not. The Federal government should ONLY be doing things that benefit everyone - not special groups or certain states. If they were no longer able to do favors for each other maybe, just maybe, the Federal government would get back to basics like the Nation Defense, Social Security, and a few other things. Then they could drop Federal Income tax to small levels and shrink the entire Federal governenment and leave it up to each state to do what they want.

  3. #16
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Andalucia
    Posts
    3,218
    Quote Originally Posted by kirbinster View Post
    Its about time for Congress to stop these wasteful bills and only be allowed to pass bills that are about one issue at a time. Further, the president should have a line item veto to stop this crap if congress won't.
    The line item veto has already been ruled unconstitutional. It is a dead issue, politicians that talk about it are not being honest with you or are naive themselves.

  4. #17
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    NJ
    Posts
    394
    Unconstitutional just means the way a law was written did not meet muster, it does not mean you can't write a new law that effectively does the same thing but goes about it in a slightly different form. Example, instead of vetoing a portion of a bill the president could have the option to only approve certain line items. Same effect different rule and it might meet a constitutional challenge. Remember there is no such thing as "The Law", the law is only what a given judge in a given court room decides it is on a given day.

  5. #18
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Andalucia
    Posts
    3,218
    Quote Originally Posted by kirbinster View Post
    Unconstitutional just means the way a law was written did not meet muster, it does not mean you can't write a new law that effectively does the same thing but goes about it in a slightly different form. Example, instead of vetoing a portion of a bill the president could have the option to only approve certain line items. Same effect different rule and it might meet a constitutional challenge. Remember there is no such thing as "The Law", the law is only what a given judge in a given court room decides it is on a given day.
    True that can be the case in some instances. It will be more than any given judge, in any case it would go to the Supreme Court.

    The line item veto in many ways may seem like a good idea. Its effects though would give the president huge power over the budget. I wonder what conservatives and libertarians would think of that.

  6. #19
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    NJ
    Posts
    394
    Quote Originally Posted by pageyjim View Post
    True that can be the case in some instances. It will be more than any given judge, in any case it would go to the Supreme Court.

    The line item veto in many ways may seem like a good idea. Its effects though would give the president huge power over the budget. I wonder what conservatives and libertarians would think of that.
    It would not give the president any authority to do stuff, only to stop stuff - which would be great if the government did less. Even if he vetos something, the Senate can still over-ride the veto.

  7. #20
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Andalucia
    Posts
    3,218
    Quote Originally Posted by kirbinster View Post
    It would not give the president any authority to do stuff, only to stop stuff - which would be great if the government did less. Even if he vetos something, the Senate can still over-ride the veto.
    There are many arguments supporting the additional power it would give the president. Just to address your points, having to over-ride the president by a 2/3 margin is not an easy thing. Out of 2563 presidential vetoes only 110 have been overidden.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Comfortech Show Promo Image

Related Forums

Plumbing Talks | Contractor Magazine
Forums | Electrical Construction & Maintenance (EC&M) Magazine
Comfortech365 Virtual Event