Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

If we're going to have to have a line-item veto...

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU
 
ck4829 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-18-07 04:45 PM
Original message
If we're going to have to have a line-item veto...
Can't we say "Okay, you can have it... in 2009"?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
aquart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-18-07 04:46 PM
Response to Original message
1. We aren't going to have a line item veto.
That's why it's being inserted all over the place. It's the deal breaker.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ThomCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-18-07 04:51 PM
Response to Reply #1
6. Right. It's the poison pill to kill legislation.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LSparkle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-18-07 04:46 PM
Response to Original message
2. What I'm afraid of is that SCOTUS will NOW rule it's OK
It was "unconstitutional" when Bill Clinton had it but now that ChimpInChief may have the power, Scalito and co. will now reverse that decision.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
evlbstrd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-18-07 04:48 PM
Response to Reply #2
3. It's extemely unusual for the SC
to rule against their own precedents.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LSparkle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-18-07 04:50 PM
Response to Reply #3
5. Phew -- I feel better
Then it's a total "non-give give" ...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
originalpckelly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-18-07 04:57 PM
Response to Reply #5
10. On some issues Scalia is actually a libertarian...
Edited on Thu Jan-18-07 04:58 PM by originalpckelly
he might not be evil completely if he wasn't a devout Catholic.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rosemary2205 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-18-07 04:49 PM
Response to Original message
4. it's like smacking a hornet's nest
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AndyA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-18-07 04:53 PM
Response to Original message
7. I'm glad to know this is not a done deal.
I don't trust those Repugs with anything. They have proven time and time again over the last six years what slimeballs they are. They have no heart, they have no soul. All they have is corruption, lies, war, torture, death, and destruction.

That should be their platform. It's the only honest thing they can say about themselves.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SharonRB Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-18-07 04:54 PM
Response to Original message
8. Why do they need it, anyway
* is going to veto the bills just as they are, in total!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
theboss Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-18-07 04:55 PM
Response to Original message
9. It was already struck down as Unconstitutional.
So...there you go.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SoCalDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-18-07 04:58 PM
Response to Original message
11. It's a no-brainer.. SCOTUS already said so.
What we NEED is SINGLE ISSUE legislation.

There is NO sense in attaching totally unrelated things onto bills that may or may not pass.

This is why Senators have a hard time running for president.

"He/she voted AGAINST medicare"..(translation a good medicare change was attached to killing SS legislation).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Karenina Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-18-07 05:00 PM
Response to Reply #11
12. BINGO!
SoCalDem nails it again. :yourock:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TechBear_Seattle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-18-07 05:11 PM
Response to Original message
13. At the very earliest, as it would require amending the Constitution
The Constitution only allows the President to sign or not sign the bill that is presented to him, not just parts of it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed May 01st 2024, 04:27 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC