Senator Judd Gregg (R) trying to get a Line Item Veto amendment added to the ethics reform bill!

[in_cog_ni_to]

Riiiiiight! Just what we need! A psychotic man, who thinks he's a dictator with the power of a Line Item Veto!!! PUHLEEEEEAZE. Does he REALLY think the Democrats will give this maniac the Line Item Veto???

It sounds like Gregg is trying to get the bill pulled completely just because HIS amendment won't be included in the bill. What an ass. Dems are IN POWER.

Explain to me how the repukes can have the bill killed if the Democrats are in the MAJORITY?

[Inuca]

1. Filibuster! n/t

[in_cog_ni_to]

4. They want to filibuster over the Line Item Veto??! OMG...what a bunch of fools. n/t

[joanski0]

12. Diane Feinstein explained that Gregg said his

people would vote against closure. That would effectively kill the bill if the Dems can't get 60 votes.

[in_cog_ni_to]

13. Ah. The repuke way to kill the Ethics reform bill. What slime. n/t

[Bluerthanblue]

2. Gregg is an ass- and I hope he'll be a loser in 08. eom

[AndyA]

3. I'd like to know the answer to that as well.

It sure seems the Dems couldn't do ANYTHING these past six years. Now how can they STILL not be able to control what happens now that they're in charge?

[hfojvt]

15. Democrats did quite a bit in the last six years

but it was all negative, ironically enough. After Jeffords gave us control of the Senate and Daschle became majority leader Democrats stopped alot of the Bush agenda. Unfortunately in the 2004 election Daschle was narrowly defeated and Mondale and Carnahan also lost, but Democrats still did some things. For example, thanks mostly to Democrats, Bush's social security 'reform' has gone nowhere. They did not cause as much trouble as a Republican minority in the Senate has and probably will again. Republicans get to act with the M$M on their side so they are not afraid to block and filibuster as the rules allow.

[jbonkowski]

5. The line item veto was declared unconstitutional

By the SCOTUS, wasn't it? Struck down completely, I thought. How can it be put up again in a bill?

jeb

[in_cog_ni_to]

6. I don't think repukes believe the SCOTUS has any POWER over them.

I honestly don't know if the SCOTUS did find it unconstitutional. I'll go Google it and see if I can find something.

[Warpy]

8. It was!

All it took was for a Democrat to get it, even a conservative Democrat like Bill Clinton.

You can bet it will be declared unconstitutional again should it pass and a Democrat gain the office in 2009.

They only want some laws to apply to their own party.

[tritsofme]

9. This is a different form of the line-item veto.

Thought to pass constitutional muster.

[NoGOPZone]

14. It was

I believe the case was Clinton vs. City of New York and that the rationale the Court used was that the law allowed a President to nullify 'duly enacted statutues' in violation of the Constitution's Presentment Clause

[Eurobabe]

7. this guy is a jerk, my Dad is from NH and can't STAND him

[SpiralHawk]

10. DA Jugghead - I am sure wants a Special Ethics Exemption for landlords who...

toss widows out of their homes. Since that would specially apply to him, and he is 'special.' He's a rich republicon crony landlord.

[in_cog_ni_to]

11. I found this:

Clinton v. City of New York (1998), the Court agreed, by a vote of 6 to 3, that the constitutional mandate that the president either sign an entire bill or veto it could not be evaded in this fashion. Although the constitutional clause can be seen as merely a formal procedural requirement, the majority opinion, written by Justice Stevens, recognized the major shift in the balance of power between the president and Congress that would result from sustaining this law. One of the most interesting aspects of this decision is that the usual divisions on the Court did not hold. Two conservatives, Chief Justice Rehnquist and Justice Clarence Thomas, were in the majority and one, Justice Antonin Scalia, who is often considered the most formalistic justice, was in dissent. The two justices often characterized as being in the center of the Court, Justices Anthony Kennedy and Sandra Day O'Connor, did not agree, and only Kennedy joined the majority. Justice O'Connor is rarely in dissent in major cases. Liberals were also divided. Justice Breyer, who is viewed as among the most pragmatic, was the sole dissenter among that group.


http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=000&invol=97-1374