Gop sends lobbyist reform to the ****ter

[bendog]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070118/.../senate_ethics

No lobbyist reform unless the potus has the pocket veto.

[Hercules Rockefeller]

Originally Posted by bendog

No lobbyist reform unless the potus has the pocket veto.

The pocket veto already exists, Gregg's amendment was what he believed would be a constitutional line-item veto.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

No way should the president be granted line item veto powers!

[W*GS]

Why not?

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Originally Posted by W*GS

Why not?

Not his or hers job to enact selective parts of legislation passed by Congress. If the prez doesn't like it he/she can veto it.

[bendog]

You don't think this, or any other president, wouldn't use the select veto power to punish individual congressmen who didn't toe the line on some issue? This admin is more vindictive than any since Nixon, but they all have degrees of pay back.

[bendog]

Originally Posted by Hercules Rockefeller

The pocket veto already exists, Gregg's amendment was what he believed would be a constitutional line-item veto.

Thanks, I thought I recalled the line item being killed by the supreme court. And pocket veto was not applicable.

[Crushaholic]

Originally Posted by Bronco_Beerslug

Not his or hers job to enact selective parts of legislation passed by Congress. If the prez doesn't like it he/she can veto it.

He/She wouldn't be changing the meat of the legislation. The president would be eliminating the funny stuff (pork projects) that has nothing to do with the intent of the legislation. Any effort to save money is welcomed. Before you think I'm being partisan, I understand that both Democrats and Republicans play this game. It needs to stop...

[Crushaholic]

Originally Posted by bendog

You don't think this, or any other president, wouldn't use the select veto power to punish individual congressmen who didn't toe the line on some issue? This admin is more vindictive than any since Nixon, but they all have degrees of pay back.

Where did you get that idea? He may be stubborn when it comes to Iraq and other issues, but vindictive is not a word I would use...

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Originally Posted by Crushaholic

He/She wouldn't be changing the meat of the legislation. The president would be eliminating the funny stuff (pork projects) that has nothing to do with the intent of the legislation. Any effort to save money is welcomed. Before you think I'm being partisan, I understand that both Democrats and Republicans play this game. It needs to stop...

This is incorrect. Line item means exactly that. He may strike ANY part of legislation passed by Congress.

U.S. District Court Judge Thomas F. Hogan decided on February 12, 1998, that unilateral amendment or repeal of only parts of statutes violated the U.S. Constitution. This ruling was subsequently affirmed on June 25, 1998, by a 6-3 decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case Clinton v. City of New York.

[Crushaholic]

Originally Posted by Bronco_Beerslug

This is incorrect. Line item means exactly that. He may strike ANY part of legislation passed by Congress.

Good point. Provided that Congress is serious about giving the president this power (which I still doubt will ever happen because Congress can't play their pork games), guidelines need to be set to ensure the intent of the legislation stays intact. I still support the concept of a line-item veto...

[bendog]

Originally Posted by Crushaholic

Where did you get that idea? He may be stubborn when it comes to Iraq and other issues, but vindictive is not a word I would use...

made me spit on the monitor with that one.

[Hercules Rockefeller]

Originally Posted by Bronco_Beerslug

This is incorrect. Line item means exactly that. He may strike ANY part of legislation passed by Congress.

Good thing that the amendment offered by Gregg did not allow for unilateral repeal of provisions that the President didn't like, hence Gregg's belief that the amendment would satisfy constitutional muster. Congress would be required to vote on whether or not to accept any line-item veto by the President.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Originally Posted by Hercules Rockefeller

Good thing that the amendment offered by Gregg did not allow for unilateral repeal of provisions that the President didn't like, hence Gregg's belief that the amendment would satisfy constitutional muster. Congress would be required to vote on whether or not to accept any line-item veto by the President.

I missed that but I'm still against the president being able to use line item veto. Better would to be prevent all the last minutes attachments that dilute these bills.

[Hercules Rockefeller]

Originally Posted by Bronco_Beerslug

Better would to be prevent all the last minutes attachments that dilute these bills.

Yep, the lack of a germaneness requirement in Senate bills is bull****. It needs to change, but both parties love it so I doubt it'll happen.

[bendog]

I dunno. I think the dems are ready to give it. The gop just torpeoded it by attaching something the dems will never accept. You can have lobbyist reform w/o son-of-line-item-veto. Plus the whole notion of bushii being the deficit monitor is absurd.

Personally, I'm just as happy with the gop saying nay, because I think basic corruption will be an issue in 08, and it certainly appears trending to the dems.

[Bladerunner]

I wish this would have passed so GW could have vetoed it with the statement that he would have passed it if he could have lined out the "almost a line item veto" portion.

[defenseman]

Originally Posted by bendog

You don't think this, or any other president, wouldn't use the select veto power to punish individual congressmen who didn't toe the line on some issue? This admin is more vindictive than any since Nixon, but they all have degrees of pay back.

The Clintons aren't vindictive? I wouldn't want to be Obama's press secretary in about 9 months. She is the defintion of vindictive, and , she swears like a drunk sailor in addition to her tirades and loss of control. Obama, will be buried..dman

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Originally Posted by defenseman

The Clintons aren't vindictive? I wouldn't want to be Obama's press secretary in about 9 months. She is the defintion of vindictive, and , she swears like a drunk sailor in addition to her tirades and loss of control. Obama, will be buried..dman

Link?

[defenseman]

Originally Posted by Bronco_Beerslug

Link?

I'll get you a few. You just don't hear about it very often. the "media" has deemed it not fit for general consumption for any of us. Gee, I wonder why? Freakin media morons...dman

[bendog]

There all vindictive, but I don't recall the clintons outing cia agents over their hubby's blowing the whistle on lying about womd.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Originally Posted by defenseman

I'll get you a few. You just don't hear about it very often. the "media" has deemed it not fit for general consumption for any of us. Gee, I wonder why? Freakin media morons...dman

BS! If ANY of them are "swearing like a drunk sailor" throwing "tirades" and out of "control" ALL media would be over it like stink on your BS.

[bendog]

Originally Posted by Bronco_Beerslug

BS! If ANY of them are "swearing like a drunk sailor" throwing "tirades" and out of "control" ALL media would be over like stink on your BS.

My God, she can't be worse than McCain (-: But wait, ladies aren't supposed to do that ****. (-:

[defenseman]

Hillary's Scheme : Inside the Next Clinton's Ruthless Agenda to Take the White House by CARL LIMBACHER - ...Hillary Clinton has carefully constructed her public persona as a calm and nurturing earth mother, but underneath that thin veneer lies a coldly calculating and vicious schemer. Limbacher details Hillary's many temper tantrums and outbursts of foul language. Staffers recall her fits of rage and describe her as "in a perpetual state of anger." Dee Dee Myers, the former Clinton press secretary, says people "clammed up" when Hillary entered the room because "she would... humiliate you in front of your colleagues." Clinton also "tended to campaign against people behind their back."...Inside the Next Clinton's Ruthless Agenda to Take the White House By Carl Limbacher - Review by Joanne McNeil

Just a review on a book on the streets with respect to Broomhillary and her antics. Just, the tip of the iceberg. I'll get you a bit more shortly...dman

*Anyone know obama did cocaine?

[defenseman]

Originally Posted by Bronco_Beerslug

BS! If ANY of them are "swearing like a drunk sailor" throwing "tirades" and out of "control" ALL media would be over it like stink on your BS.

I call Bulls**t on you pal. The freakin elitists media LOVES broomhillary. They'll protect her fata$$ to her eventual demise politically. Looking forward to it...dman

*Obama, stands NO chance at all. Coke and smokes will be his undoing at broomhillary's convienience I might add.