Thread: What You Need to Push For

A Constitutional Amendment granting the president the power to veto line items in spending bills, if you want to see any kind of limit re-imposed on the nonsense Congresss is doing.

If Obie is serious about fiscal responsibility, he has to demand the Democrat dominated House and Senate pass this amendment in the first 100 days.

Paraphrased Text:

The President may veto a single, or multiple items, on spending bills, and items so vetoed are stricken from the bill unless each item veto, individually, is overridden by a two thirds vote in both the House and the Senate.

Originally Posted by Freedom for All

A Constitutional Amendment granting the president the power to veto line items in spending bills, if you want to see any kind of limit re-imposed on the nonsense Congresss is doing.

If Obie is serious about fiscal responsibility, he has to demand the Democrat dominated House and Senate pass this amendment in the first 100 days.

Do they have enough votes to do that?

Originally Posted by Blueneck

Do they have enough votes to do that?

Article V
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

Some Republicans would have to come on board. But, it's a traditional Republican issue, so it wouldn't be hard to get enough of them to support it, depending on what the actual language of the amendment said.

The tricky part is getting Congress to give up it's power to jam urgent and necessary bills with crap, leaving the president with no choice but to sign, as the extra hundred billion dollars tacked onto the "bailout" package showed.

IMO, the president that can get that Amendment passed and ratified will automatically be in the top-ten list of best presidents, unless he really really manages to do something incredibly stupid, like cede Aztlan to Mexico or something.

Originally Posted by Freedom for All

A Constitutional Amendment granting the president the power to veto line items in spending bills, if you want to see any kind of limit re-imposed on the nonsense Congresss is doing.

If Obie is serious about fiscal responsibility, he has to demand the Democrat dominated House and Senate pass this amendment in the first 100 days.

Paraphrased Text:

The President may veto a single, or multiple items, on spending bills, and items so vetoed are stricken from the bill unless each item veto, individually, is overridden by a two thirds vote in both the House and the Senate.

No I would not support such an amendment. The SCOTUS has ruled wisely on this issue. I also do not support the back door approach, a writing statements. Accept the bill as is or send it back.

NO line item vetos.

That is TOO MUCH executive power.

Nah pal, the President doesn't get to pick and choose.

He only gets to approve, or disapprove.

THAT'S WHAT THE CONTRACT SAYS, pal.

Originally Posted by nonsqtr

NO line item vetos.

That is TOO MUCH executive power.

Nah pal, the President doesn't get to pick and choose.

He only gets to approve, or disapprove.

THAT'S WHAT THE CONTRACT SAYS, pal.

I was shocked FfA did this poll, hell he knows the rules as well as anyone and more than most.

Originally Posted by michaelr

I was shocked FfA did this poll, hell he knows the rules as well as anyone and more than most.

Shhhh. I think he's trying to set us up.

Originally Posted by michaelr

No I would not support such an amendment. The SCOTUS has ruled wisely on this issue. I also do not support the back door approach, a writing statements. Accept the bill as is or send it back.

In theory that makes sense, and if presidents were rational then we wouldn't need this.

However, since president's seem to be pressured into signing bills that have useless spending on them, they should be allowed to pick and chose what they veto.

Worth a try...

No, it would be to much power in the hands of one man. Better would be an amendment to require a balanced budget, with no monies taken from trust funds, no off budget items, and borrowing should not exceed no more than a generation could pay off and should borrowing be necessary it would require a 2/3rd majority.

Originally Posted by Nerv14

In theory that makes sense, and if presidents were rational then we wouldn't need this.

However, since president's seem to be pressured into signing bills that have useless spending on them, they should be allowed to pick and chose what they veto.

Worth a try...

The total congress and administrative branch are co-equal, therefore bring forth an acceptable bill that can be signed into law. I am a hard liner here. This opens a door to partisan "pick and choose", and it has been said, it would allow to much power to one branch of government.