- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- SEC Score Board
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
0
Posted on 5/4/20 at 11:47 am to OleWarSkuleAlum
Do not support. I do support on state level though.
Posted on 5/4/20 at 11:49 am to OleWarSkuleAlum
quote:
OleWarSkuleAlum
quote:
Centrist Republican.
AKA, a loser that votes for democrats and chamber of commerce amnesty supporter republicans.
Posted on 5/4/20 at 11:52 am to ELVIS U
quote:
I do support on state level though.
We have it here in Louisiana and it gives our democrat Governor too much power over the republican legislature and has been the source of so much corruption, influence peddling and political retaliation over the last several decades.
Line item veto power is a bad idea and thankfully it's one the framers pissed on in the 1700s.
Posted on 5/4/20 at 11:57 am to Sentrius
I am a moderate-to-liberal Democrat. I am unalterably opposed to line item veto at the national level.
Posted on 5/4/20 at 11:59 am to notsince98
quote:
Can someone explain to me the downfalls of line-item veto? It seems to me this would fit perfectly fine within the whole concept of checks-and-balances.
If congress passes a bill, the president has the right to veto it. I think we can all agree on that. How is line-item changing it?
If the president is truly in the wrong congress still has the option of veto-override with super majority, correct?
I don't see how line-item veto is granting a president any more power than they already have. I am sure I am missing something simple because there is a lot of folks who are adamantly against it.
EDIT: I can see an argument that w/out line-item veto, congress has too much power. They can literally piggyback anything in a bill that has items that absolutely cannot be veto'd and the president really can't do anything about it.
You are absolutely correct in all regards.
Congress does have too much power in their ability to add riders to essential (must pass) legislation when those rider subjects would never be passed on their own merits.
Congress being able to address any line item veto individually and override them through the standard veto-override procedure would strengthen both hands and eliminate a lot of trash from our legislation.
Posted on 5/4/20 at 12:02 pm to OleWarSkuleAlum
Nope... DIMocrats will control all 3 branches at some point. Think 2009-2010.
Posted on 5/4/20 at 12:02 pm to ShortyRob
quote:
That said, I'd sure love to figure out a way to force it to be impossible to include completely unrelated shite in bills.
I am anti-pork and anti-line item veto. Both are rooted in power peddling.
Constitutional Conservative
Posted on 5/4/20 at 12:05 pm to OleWarSkuleAlum
It’s a dead issue barring a new SCOTUS interpretation.
The version of this from the 90s was tossed, IIRC on the grounds that it gave legislative powers to the executive.
The version of this from the 90s was tossed, IIRC on the grounds that it gave legislative powers to the executive.
Posted on 5/4/20 at 12:07 pm to Music_City_Tiger
quote:
Nope... DIMocrats will control all 3 branches at some point. Think 2009-2010.
At such a point in time "what difference does it make?" I see no danger from the line item veto in that event as they would have total control regardless.
This post was edited on 5/4/20 at 12:10 pm
Posted on 5/4/20 at 12:08 pm to OleWarSkuleAlum
quote:
Why would you support line item veto? Additionally state your purported political affiliation.
I would like line item voting for Congress. That should drop spending quite a bit. Wouldn’t have time to vote for near as much as they presently do.
Posted on 5/4/20 at 12:12 pm to OleWarSkuleAlum
Without it we get the crap like the Dems did by holding the country hostage to line a bill with pork! Shame on the party of “taking advantage of a national crisis to force their agenda down our throats”. Tell Nancy to get her bunch of losers back to work like the Senate.
Posted on 5/4/20 at 12:23 pm to OleWarSkuleAlum
No, I support The Constitution.
Posted on 5/4/20 at 12:24 pm to bluestem75
quote:
I think a better amendment would be forcing Congress to pass laws restricted to one issue/topic only. No pork, etc
This. Unfortunately Congress is not very amenable to passing rules on themselves.
Posted on 5/4/20 at 12:28 pm to OleWarSkuleAlum
One thing the Confederacy did right
Posted on 5/4/20 at 12:29 pm to OleWarSkuleAlum
A long time ago, yes...now hell no
Posted on 5/4/20 at 12:53 pm to saints5021
quote:
If and Only If, the law could only be used for spending cuts, then I would support it.
quote:
Passing anything in Government is meant to be hard. Our system is meant to foster compromise.
While true, after around 240ish years, some have found, that they can remain in power, abuse our laws/system, for their ideology/gain, at the peoples expense.
Our Constitution gave provisions for change. It was always setup as a living document that incorporated a means for change. It has a provision/amendment process to allow that change.
Page 2 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News