Toggle navigation
Toggle navigation
Home
DCUM Forums
Nanny Forums
Events
About DCUM
Advertising
Search
Recent Topics
Hottest Topics
FAQs and Guidelines
Privacy Policy
Your current identity is: Anonymous
Login
Preview
Subject:
Forum Index
»
Political Discussion
Reply to "s/o - line item veto"
Subject:
Emoticons
More smilies
Text Color:
Default
Dark Red
Red
Orange
Brown
Yellow
Green
Olive
Cyan
Blue
Dark Blue
Violet
White
Black
Font:
Very Small
Small
Normal
Big
Giant
Close Marks
[quote=Anonymous][quote=jsteele]I think the line item veto, and so-called "signing statements" have the effect of corrupting legislative intent. It is the role of the Congress to create legislation. The President signs it or doesn't sign it. It is not his role to modify it. If the President is unable to interpret parts of a bill he has been asked to sign, he can veto it or leave the interpretation to the courts. With signing statements, Congress votes on one thing, and then the President says "I am signing this into law, but am going to interpret it as follows...". I do not believe that is constitutional. The line item veto goes a bit further. Not only would the President be inserting himself directly into the legislative process, but he might make the legislative process even more difficult. Legislation is almost always developed by deal-making. One member will agree to something in return for something else. There is nothing wrong with that. Remember that a great number such deals -- including the creation of a bicameral legislature -- were essential to the foundation of our government. Such deals would be much more difficult if there was a concern that the President might veto the quid pro quo that one side was expecting. [/quote] I don't see there something sacrosanct about the president not legislating. (I understand there are issues of the interpretation of the constitution as it exists, of course.) If Congress is failing in this regard, I'm happy to spread the power if that will help. The negotiation issue is different. That is tricky. I wonder if the veto could be limited in some way - actually, wasn't that the idea? - only specific expenditures, or something? Either way, I might prefer it. As things are, it's not just an issue of deal-making; it's the ability to hold bills hostage to extort pork. Anyway, thanks for the answer.[/quote]
Options
Disable HTML in this message
Disable BB Code in this message
Disable smilies in this message
Review message
Search
Recent Topics
Hottest Topics