Repubs to bring down ethics bill over line item veto...Reid says

[SaveElmer]

Over the line item veto!!!


These people really have a tin ear..


Exit polls showed congressional corruption to be the number one issue this past election, and the Republicans are gonna kill the ethics bill...

edit: Made title clearer

[Bjornsdotter]

1. Amazing isn't it

Reid nailed them though...."If it was so important to them, why didn't they pass it last year when they controlled the Senate."

Cheers

[acmavm]

2. Let 'em. That ought to clear up any doubts about what scum

they are.

[endarkenment]

3. So what?

Force them to filibuster. Force them to veto. Let them obstruct every progressive reform put forth and we will see where things stand in 08.

[gratuitous]

4. The line item veto is unconstitutional anyway

The line item veto in effect gives the Executive the power of the purse, which the Constitution reserves exclusively to the House. But Reid's point is well-taken: If passing the line item veto in all its glorious unconstitutionality is so important to the Republicans, why didn't they pass a bill on it when they held the majority? Or was the congressional calendar too full of vital issues like flag burning amendments and Terri Schiavo?

[Recursion]

8. I think the Constitution leaves room for rescissions

And I think there could be bipartisan support for returning that. Rather than a true line-item veto, rescissions are just a formalization of the fact that Congress can't force the administration to spend money; a President could elect to simply not spend a given allocated fund at all.

Jefferson Davis, btw, had a line item veto, and it led to some of the very problems the opponents of the idea bring up.

[Recursion]

13. Interesting Confederate Constitution tidbit #2

While looking up the bit on Jefferson Davis's line-item veto, I also found these interesting bits in the CSA Constitution:

(10) All bills appropriating money shall specify in Federal currency the exact amount of each appropriation and the purposes for which it is made; and Congress shall grant no extra compensation to any public contractor, officer, agent, or servant, after such contract shall have been made or such service rendered.

(20) Every law, or resolution having the force of law, shall relate to but one subject, and that shall be expressed in the title.

Another interesting idea, from the president's powers:

(4) The President shall have power to fill all vacancies that may happen during the recess of the Senate, by granting commissions which shall expire at the end of their next session; but no person rejected by the Senate shall be reappointed to the same office during their ensuing recess.

ie, you could recess-appoint Bolton but not after he got rejected.

I don't like their six-year Presidency idea, because that means one class of Senators is always tied to a national election cycle while the other two "escape" that. Still, it's an interesting document.

[I_Make_Mistakes]

5. Did you hear him use The Republics? I have had microsoft

system related problems for the last 2 weeks, so I haven't been able to get here too often.

Is it now standard practice to use Republics, or is just starting up! I've embraced since Nancy used it.

Edit to add: Didn't the Republics say the last election was over the ethics issues within their own party? Do they not get that this will not make their constituents happy (except for the 25-30% die hards)? I know that the war was the primary reason, but THEY said that the ethics issues were the turning point. Talk about shooting oneself in the foot!

[Matariki]

11. i think i like 'republickers'

with the emphasis on the last two syllables. it's what they;ve been doing to *'s ass the last 6 years.

[I_Make_Mistakes]

14. The point is the REPULICS has now been used by Reid and

there was a post on here earlier in the month that it was also used by Pelosi. It is a way to nullify the Republicans use of DemocRAT. It is civil and not nasty, just a right back at you!

[Matariki]

15. yes I know. i was making a joke n/t

[I_Make_Mistakes]

16. Sorry, I didn't get it. I am a reformed Republic and you know

how reformed smokers are, rabid about smoking that's how I became about Republics. The problem was I was using all the nasty words and realized it only reflected poorly on me. I am over that now with the elections of Nov. I am much more calm and reflective about my behavior.

[Matariki]

18. hey, no problem. it wasn't very funny anyway.

:toast:

i was trying make a reference to the way 'they' emphasize 'rats' in Democrats. Really I think that the name calling thing would be juvenile and undignified. But 'Republics' is, like you said - a fairly gentle 'back at you'.

[AndyA]

6. And may this act alone be enough to cost them the 2008 elections.

Face it, ethics is a huge concern for Americans right now. Or, I should say LACK of ETHICS. And those GOP whores, who never missed a $900 dinner with a lobbyist, or a chance to get campaign donations in return for government contracts or favors, are the ones who this ethics issue is focused on.

Let them kill the bill. F*CK them. They are shooting themselves in the foot. And they will pay for it in 2008. The Dems just need to remind everyone that the Republican Party is the party of torture, spying, and unethical activities. And they have the resume to prove it.

[williesgirl]

7. No line item veto for this or any president. period. Let them obstruct all they want to

and let asshole veto whatever his teeny tiny so-called heart wants to. They will all face the voters in 08 and pay the price.

[crikkett]

9. what line-item veto?

Why would they mess up an ethics bill by adding a line-item veto?

That's just stupid.

[moondust]

10. Obstructionists!

Republigoons don't want no damn ethics! How are they supposed to get anything done? Sheesh!

[DearAbby]

12. They are cutting off their noses

to spite their faces, they are handing amunition to kill whatever chances for re-election. Imagine campaign ads, _______ purposely obstructed the Ethic's Bill. Isn't Ethics important to the Republics?

[DemReadingDU]

17. Guess they'd rather have those 'perks'

edit to add link
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16680386/