davjohns 1 #1 July 4, 2012 Got to thinking about this at the gym. I have traditionally been against the idea because I mistakenly was thinking that it meant during one party's regime, the POTUS would strike all of the other party's items. But for some reason, it never crossed my mind that would not be the case. In reality, the existance of the LIV would change legislation fundamentally. There would not be any "I'll go along with your pork if you'll go along with mine". The party that did not have the presidency would never go for that. So, I think legislation would have to be mutually acceptable to pass the Senate and House. The two sides (in our two party system) would have to find common ground and legislation would not go back and forth depending on who held power currently. I'm not saying we would always get better legislation, but it seem probable. With that reasoning, I have to be in favor of it. Did I miss something?I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #2 July 4, 2012 If the LIV could be overridden by Congress in the same manner as currently exists, that may work - otherwise it could still leave an avenue for possible abuse by POTUS.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
livendive 8 #3 July 4, 2012 QuoteIf the LIV could be overridden by Congress in the same manner as currently exists, that may work - otherwise it could still leave an avenue for possible abuse by POTUS. I agree with this. I think there's some value in the executive having the ability to nix all manner of silliness that comes out of Congress, but there would have to be an avenue of overriding any Presidential abuse of that authority. Overall, it seems to me that the House is most prone to oddball attention-grabbing legislation, with a fair amount of horsetrading frivolous crap. The Senate usually seems a bit more respectful of their opponents, and a bit less prone to weird legislation, but when they go south, it's in actually nefarious ways rather than the simple childishness of the House. The President usually strikes me as the most mature of the bunch, but all three factions seem about equally prone to pork. So long as Congress can knock the Presidents dick in the dirt if need be, I think it'd be cool for him to be able to clip their bickering, horsetrading, and totally unrelated riders from the crap they try to pass as logical and wise legislation. Blues, Dave"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #4 July 4, 2012 Quote The party that did not have the presidency would never go for that. So, I think legislation would have to be mutually acceptable to pass the Senate and House. The two sides (in our two party system) would have to find common ground and legislation would not go back and forth depending on who held power currently. ... Did I miss something? How can you ever find common ground when each side knows that the President can nix it. That's like Poland negotiating with the Germans while watching the Soviet army advance from the east. The point of a compromise is that when it's made, it actually sticks. Unfortunately these days, with the unleadership that each party brings to the table, a compromise like the deficit reduction pledge from over a year ago doesn't mean a damn thing. They both cheated on their word and that committee didn't do shit to reduce spending. Putting it more simply - would you feel comfortable with Obama have 20% more power? For the true Dems here, could you have standed Shrub having 20% more power? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
headoverheels 334 #5 July 4, 2012 Do any states have line-item veto? If so, how is it working? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
davjohns 1 #6 July 4, 2012 Roger. I assume it would have a 2/3 majority override just like a regular veto.I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
davjohns 1 #7 July 4, 2012 That's the point. Everything has to be acceptable to both parties before it passes. Otherwise, the party that does not have the presidency can't agree to it for fear of the veto. The only way one party would be able to bully the other is if one party had both the LIV and the majority in both houses to push things through without compromise. But that would give one party all power even without the LIV anyhow. Basically, I think less would get passed, but what did get passed would be a whole compromise and not a bunch of bits and pieces.I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #8 July 4, 2012 QuoteRoger. I assume it would have a 2/3 majority override just like a regular veto. Can we implement a 'no-pork' rule, too?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
davjohns 1 #9 July 4, 2012 Dreamer.I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #10 July 4, 2012 Quote Dreamer. Hey, if we're gonna dream, let's dream big!Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
airdvr 210 #11 July 4, 2012 Quote Quote Dreamer. Hey, if we're gonna dream, let's dream big! Pay-go. The LIV will never happen. Too much power to the executive branch.Please don't dent the planet. Destinations by Roxanne Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #12 July 4, 2012 Quote Quote Roger. I assume it would have a 2/3 majority override just like a regular veto. Can we implement a 'no-pork' rule, too? The Line Item Veto Act of 1996 did just that. It was part of the reason for the line item veto - to help cut pork, and Congress gave it to Clinton as part of the Contract with America (the only part of the Contract with America that President Clinton was in vocal support of. Not that he wanted to have that power or anything...) But there was a problem. The Presentment Clause of the Constitution provides how laws are to be passed. THe SCOTUS reasoned that the POTUS with a line item veto has the authority to amend or strike laws unilaterally, which isn't how bills are passed or vited down. It effectively killed off the future of the line-item veto without a Constitutional Amendment. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #13 July 4, 2012 QuoteThat's the point. Everything has to be acceptable to both parties before it passes. Otherwise, the party that does not have the presidency can't agree to it for fear of the veto. That fear never goes away. Congress can't negotiate on even terms with that power hanging over. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
