You need to explain your theory. I don't understand what you're trying to say. Let me try again...

Congressmen who want to spend taxpayer monies in their state, to buy votes for themselves, will add their bill onto another unrelated bill that must be passed. The reason they do this is to sneak their bill through congress and to the president. Their bill would not stand a chance on it's own, mostly because it's a waste of money and lacks merit.

When the president sees this add on, he must veto the entire "real" bill just because some jackass congressman wants something for just his own state that will help him get elected in his next election.

Now, explain to us how Clinton became a totalitarian president from using the line item veto over 80 times. Did he save the taxpayers of America money or did he gain some sort of power that you have yet to describe to me?

The line item veto saves tons of money because all bills would have to stand on their own. A congressman would no longer be able to sneak one through. Like I said, it's already being used by nearly all states and the governers are not considered totalitarian.

 

Some states do give a lot of power to there governers and that most governers have it (which also bothers me) but i dont know how every state constitution gives powers to its different branches of government. However, I do have a decent knowledge of the Constitution of the US.

Yes maybe he did save the government money ok that is a positive but it is putting too much power in the hand of only one person this undermines the system of Checks and Balances as set in the Constitution. Congress has the power to legislate laws and it is the power of the President to enforce or excute these laws. Just as the judges should not legistate from the bench no President should not have the power to legislate from the oval office. When you look at if from the ability to eliminate Pork Barrel Spending then you really can't be against it but you have to look at the larger picture that Bill has been approved buy Congress a group of 535 people buy a majority of that group. It is then sent to the President and he has the choice to agree or disagree if he agrees everything is fine. If he disagrees then congress can override that veto. But with a line item veto the Bill gets through congress goes to the President and takes out only part of the bill this is not the same bill that passed congress there may no longer be a majority of that 535 that want to bill to pass in which all power was just handed over to a single person. Now if that bill was to then have to be revoted on buy Congress and it passed again that would be ok.

I did not use an actual example of a bill on purpose because it would bring in peronal ideas about a certain topic. This way you can decide if you still agree with the idea or not.

 

Pet project bills benefitting a single congressman and/or state have been sneaked through the Congress without anyone noticing. Some bills are several feet thick, so you can understand how a couple of lines saying a certain state will construct a statue, on the taxpayer's dime, honoring its senator can slip by.

Anyway, there is still no absolute power, although a shade of it exists in the Congress, not the administration in this case. Even if a president exercises the line item veto, the veto can be overridden by congress and became enacted. Not very totalitarian for the president.

BTW, governors have extraordinary powers over their state. More than a US President. States govern themselves and if they don't want federal intervention, they can tell the feds to FO. What they risk is loss of federal funding for pork barrel projects, along with others.

 

I see your side of it though i am still against it and personally i am glad that Congress does have advantage over the other branches the writers of the constitution had a problem with the idea of a single person holding to much power. If you recall when the Fed wanted to lower the DUI limit from .10 to .08 states did not have to do it but as u say they would have lost some federal money. Same with seatbeat laws New Hampshire was the last to give in. That is according to Rand Mcnalley cause i know in 2001 they still did not have a seat belt law for adults. If you think line item veto is ok thats ur choice but i can't agree with it. But do remember that Hitler came to legally. No, i am not saying that the US is goin to turn into **** Germany but i dont want that option available

 

The line item veto DOES NOT give the president or any other single person too much power. The president's vetoes can be overridden by congress. Congress does not have an advantage over other branches. There's a balance of powers, though it's not perfect in every instance.

Consider this: Shortly after the Supremes struck down the line item veto as unconstitutional, the next highway bill had 1,500 pork barrel projects attached by croney congressmen. These pork barrel projects had nothing to do with the nation's highways. More than $5 billion could have been saved on this bill alone with the line item veto.

You're missing the forest for the trees. It's not an issue of one person having too much power. Never was. It's an issue of controlling wastful spending by self-serving cronies. It also prevents opposing poilitical parties from holding a sitting president hostage by attaching bills that would derail administration plans for economic development, for example. Clinton was able to develop his agenda even with a Republican congress, mainly because he had the line item veto powers.

If you want to harp about something, harp about the courts, especially the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, who legislate from the bench. There's nothing more dangerous than a judge, a single person who rules with his heart and personal beliefs rather than a strict interpretation of the law, who legislates from the bench. These judges are changing the face of America and it is not their right to do so.

 

Before this goes any farther what are your personal feeling or the words "under God" in the pledge of allegence? Cause i think i know but am not 100% sure.

 

I don't see the connection. Nothing like taking a 90 degree turn into a big wall. Bam.

That was a different time. The same sort of reference is made on our money, many of our public buildings, and most all of our historical documents. Further back, America was founded and based on religion and religious freedom, among all other freedoms. The Founding Fathers were a religious lot. Still, they did a fine job of guaranteeing a separation of church and state. What's wrong, anyway, in using a religion as the basis for creating an orderly society? It seems like a good starting point to me. What else was there?

My personal feelings are that they are just two words. Leave 'em in, take 'em out. I don't care.

 

Alright but your the one that brought up a certain court i was trying to keep it theoretical. One thing though u will not get me all angry at you over this and say i am goin to fight you like u have been able to do to others if you feel that it is ok for the President to have a line item veto that is ur Constitutional right and i respect that but i will vote against any politicaian that supports the idea. And if you read my post at 1:13:13PM i say that judges should not legislate from the bench and any judge that does (whether it helps or harms my side of any argument) should be impeached.

 

I'm not getting mad at you. I only get mad at stupid people who say stupid things.

You still haven't described how a president is totalitarian and has too much power because they have the line item veto. You haven't supported your belief that's it's a bad thing, though you've stated over and over that it is. The only thing you've said is that it's okay if I don't agree with you. I guess that's okay, if that's all you got.

I was trying to take it a step deeper, I guess. I'll just go exercise my constitutional rights somewhere.

The court I mentioned as an example is the most egregious. I wanted you to know what I meant. Their rulings are public record and many are a farce and even overturned by higher courts. Dancing around trying to be theorhetical and philosophical just wastes time sometimes. How did mentioning the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals harm this discussion anyway?

 

The line item veto in itself gives the president too much power the very definition of one man being able to take and change something that a majority of 535 people had to agree on and then him being able to remove part of it without it having to be sent back to congress for a revote.