| Author |
Message |
    
Hoops
Citizen
Username: Hoops
Post Number: 868
Registered: 10-2004
| | Posted on Monday, March 6, 2006 - 11:28 am: | 
|
Here is something that I agree with Bush on -
article here
|
The SLK Effect
Citizen
Username: Scrotisloknows
Post Number: 1002
Registered: 10-2005
| | Posted on Monday, March 6, 2006 - 11:36 am: |
|
I agree too...holy moley...duck!  |
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 5296
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 6, 2006 - 12:11 pm: |
|
It won't happen, and if it does happen -- not soon enough for Bush to get it. I think you'll have to amend the Constitution, as simple congressional legislation didn't make it past the Supremes. |
Dr. Winston O'Boogie
Citizen
Username: Casey
Post Number: 1955
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 6, 2006 - 12:16 pm: |
|
just goes to show there are really bad ideas that can appeal across ideologies.
first off, passing such legislation would be a waste of time, since a similar law was already deemed unconstitutional by the SCOTUS.
secondly, at this time, with Bush trying to already grab as much power for the executive branch as he can, the last thing the country needs is for Congress to cede more power to the president. the fact that Congress is doing a bad job at appropriating funds doesn't mean they should abdicate the responsibility. it means that we as voters should do a better job at holding them accountable for what they spend. unfortunately, one person's pork is another person's windfall. |
Grrrrrrrrrrr
Citizen
Username: Oldsctls67
Post Number: 337
Registered: 11-2002
| | Posted on Monday, March 6, 2006 - 3:44 pm: |
|
#41 tried this and didn't get it either... |
Southerner
Citizen
Username: Southerner
Post Number: 790
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Monday, March 6, 2006 - 7:34 pm: |
|
Hey Doc,
In case you missed it the SC has had a little change in personnel. |
Dr. Winston O'Boogie
Citizen
Username: Casey
Post Number: 1956
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 6, 2006 - 7:48 pm: |
|
five of the justices who voted to overturn the law then are still on the court. |
Bob K
Supporter
Username: Bobk
Post Number: 10892
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 7, 2006 - 4:26 am: |
|
This is typical Bush. He talks about eliminating "earmarks", but in actual fact would use the power to eliminate social spending.
Congress passed a similar law in the 1990s and it was declared overturned by the Supreme Court. |
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 5300
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 7, 2006 - 9:39 am: |
|
OK -- per usual, the first day of reporting by the press is either wrong and/or lacking vital details.
What will supposedly allow this attempt at the line-item veto to pass is that Bush can line-item those pork projects he says should be eliminated. Then, it's Congress -- not the president -- that takes an up or down vote on the projects in stand-alone legislation. This say, the president isn't 'legislating.' That will be left to the only government bodies that are allowed to legislate -- Congress, and the Supreme Court.
What isn't clear is whether the pork projects are voted upon individually, or if they're bundled up and voted on as a group. If it's the latter, I don't see much happening. |
Eats Shoots & Leaves
Citizen
Username: Mfpark
Post Number: 3098
Registered: 9-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 7, 2006 - 3:42 pm: |
|
Agreed on the pork if it is bundled. But the devil is in the details. Imagine the political manuvering and pressure and "incentives" that will be placed on the President--it is bad enough the way Congress and lobbyists fornicate with each other over each separate earmark; will we now be adding the White House to the fray? I hope not--there is already too much lobbying of the Pres as it is. |
Bob K
Supporter
Username: Bobk
Post Number: 10896
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 7, 2006 - 3:49 pm: |
|
Cjc, since he is approving or disapproving the legislation, or at least part of it, before it is passed I will bet that the Supremes will consider it the Executive legislating. Essentially the President is telling Congress what to include in bills. |
Tom Reingold
Supporter
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 12779
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 7, 2006 - 4:59 pm: |
|
Clinton also advocated for this, and I disagreed with him, and I disagree with Bush.
|
Dr. Winston O'Boogie
Citizen
Username: Casey
Post Number: 1962
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 7, 2006 - 5:09 pm: |
|
same here.
A lot of chief executives will grab for more authority if they think they can, regardless of their party affiliation. I didn't want Clinton trying to expand his executive powers any more than I want Bush doing the same. |
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page