Presidential Power Grab

[Bobbieo]

President Bush has proposed the Legislative Line Item Veto Act of 2006, which would allow him to strike whatever particular provisions from appropriations or entitlement bills that he chooses. This is yet another attempt to expand executive power for the benefit of the Right, while marginalizing progressives in Congress.

Under current law, once both chambers have completed their work on appropriations and entitlement bills, the President must approve or disapprove these bills in their entirety. The line item veto, however, would allow the President to veto whatever portion of the legislation he doesn’t like, offering him ‘rewrite authority’ on any bill. Progressive provisions negotiated through compromises in Congress wouldn’t stand a chance.

Proponents of the Line Item Veto Act point out that once the President vetoes a particular item, Congress has the option to either eliminate the funding as requested, or disregard the President’s wishes and fund the program, but the President’s veto would still stop funding for the services in question for up to 6 months – even if Congress votes immediately to overrule him! By merely withholding their funds through the end of the fiscal year, the President could single-handedly close down thousands of programs that are funded on a yearly basis, thus usurping the “power of the purse” specifically conferred upon Congress in Article I of the Constitution.

Both the House and the Senate are expected to take up the line item proposal in the next few months. Sign our petition opposing this power grab.

This just came to me on my e-mail from another of the groups I must have subscribed to. I have never signed so many petitions in my life and they are coming in, now, on a daily basis. The awful thing is that Bush has two more years to go. When will he be stopped????

[electropop]

1. Line-item veto is a perennnial favorite.

It's been passed a few times (once under Clinton I think). Every time, the Supreme Court strikes it down; it's totally unconstitutional. With all the RW kooks on the SC now though, I suppose there's an outside chance for it.

[Zen Democrat]

2. The Congress passed the line item veto in 1995 --

And the Supreme Court overturned it as unconstitutional. I know we have a different court these days, but would the Court allow such a law to stand so soon after ruling it unconstitutional?

[Bobbieo]

5. Line Item Veto

This came from a group called PFAW's American Way. Would the Court allow such a law to stnad so soon after ruling it unconstitutional? To answer your question Zen Democrat - Yeah, I think this group would.

[rodeodance]

3. but i read even some Dems are in favor of this.

[Sammy Pepys]

4. It's tempting to like the line item veto...but...

it's clear why it's unconstitutional.

[Richard Steele]

6. Even if true, it's completely pointless to a pResident who ignores the law

Why would he even bother with this?

With his 'signing statements' scam, he already tells
the USA that he is going to do whatever the hell he wants
regardless of what the law he just signed actually says.

There is no 'power' left to grab; he has already laid claim to ALL of it.

All that is left is mere window dressing;
a 'line-item veto' is only useful to convince the sheeple
that the dictator who exists NOW is legally justified
to be a dictator.

And BTW, WELCOME TO DU!!!!!:hi:

[Bobbieo]

7. Now that he;s got it all

He has got to have something to do so he stirs up more shit!!! Get's us Liberals all flustered!!!

[Richard Steele]

9. Yup. But it's not so much about US as it is his base.

He needs to keep stirring shit to keep his supporters distracted
from the FACT that they have been played for chumps.

[PublicWrath]

8. This would totally undermine compromise by allowing a second selective

vote on vetoed items. This is awful.