XXIX Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America

[DreamRyderX]

Well, that is exactly the power, that the line item veto act gives the President. So, you disapprove of the line item veto act. Good!!!



It is the President who looks at any bill as a single bill. A single onion has many layers, but it is still a single onion. He can veto the entire bill, and send it back to Congress with his suggestions and comments about its layers. He can sign it into law, with all of its layers. But he CAN'T sign a single bill into law, and then remove some of its layers. That is unconstitutional.

It has nothing to do with the composition of a bill. It has everything to do with the President's constitutional, and statutory powers to sign bills into law. A President cannot veto, amend, delete any portion of a bill that he has already signed into law. Also, if each bill IS a single appropriation, then how can the President veto only a portion of that bill, after signing it into law? How? What is to stop him from extending this power onto ALL bills? The Constitution? Hence why, a new constitutional amendment would be needed.

Either you think that Congress should give this power to the president(which they can't), or should not. I have given you my reasons. That it is unconstitutional, and that it would undoubtedly be abused by both parties.



The confederate constitution was all about protecting the rights of 11 confederate states. Which included keeping slavery as an institution. The US Constitution is about protecting the rights of ALL States, and all institutions. The Confederate Constitution was a short-sighted, and a divisive document. Many governors already have line item veto powers. So what? The President is NOT the state government. I disagree with you. This is NOT the executive's money, or the Congress's money. It is the people's money, and they should have as much say in how it is spent, as congress or the president.

......Absolutely 100% SPOT ON!!! .....

 

[Auggie]

Also, if each bill IS a single appropriation, then how can the President veto only a portion of that bill, after signing it into law? How? What is to stop him from extending this power onto ALL bills? The Constitution? Hence why, a new constitutional amendment would be needed.

Yes, I agree, a constitutional amendment would be required.

This is NOT the executive's money, or the Congress's money. It is the people's money, and they should have as much say in how it is spent, as congress or the president.

That's just a platitude and doesn't say anything about public policy.

When the Government collects revenue it does so to fund public services. Generally, public services go toward a specific purpose which helps society as a whole or a specific group of people.

The executive branch is the branch of government that oversees and administers public services. In most cases, public policy is drafted by the executive branch and submitted to Congress for approval.

Pork-barrel spending projects is actually a waste of taxpayer's money. Now, if a road is required to be built in a specific town then it should go through the same 'needs-based' as other public policy.

The President, who is elected by the people (although the electoral college dilutes this), controls the executive branch, and is to large extent responsible to developing and implementing public policy.

Nearly all parliamentary systems of government functions like this - Parliament has no say or control over appropriations. It's all determined by executive branch and approved by Parliament.

 

[Shellandshilo1956]

That's just a platitude and doesn't say anything about public policy.

No, it is a fact. The people SHOULD have a say in how their money is spent. If their representatives ignores their say, they will be fired.

Yes, I agree, a constitutional amendment would be required.

I agree.

When the Government collects revenue it does so to fund public services. Generally, public services go toward a specific purpose which helps society as a whole or a specific group of people.

Mostly agree.

The executive branch is the branch of government that oversees and administers public services. In most cases, public policy is drafted by the executive branch and submitted to Congress for approval.

The president can only issue executive orders. Which does not require congressional approval. But even these orders are subject to judicial review and interpretation by the courts.

The President, who is elected by the people (although the electoral college dilutes this), controls the executive branch, and is to large extent responsible to developing and implementing public policy.

Not sure what you mean by developing and implementing public policy. Can you give me an example?

Nearly all parliamentary systems of government functions like this - Parliament has no say or control over appropriations. It's all determined by executive branch and approved by Parliament.

If parliament has the power to approve or disapprove appropriation bills, then I'd say parliament DOES have a say and control over the appropriations from the executive branch. You are describing a dictatorship. Where the dictator or autocrat creates the rules, and the legislature obeys the rules(rubber-stamps).

 

[MilesAway]

Yes, I agree, a constitutional amendment would be required.



That's just a platitude and doesn't say anything about public policy.

When the Government collects revenue it does so to fund public services. Generally, public services go toward a specific purpose which helps society as a whole or a specific group of people.

The executive branch is the branch of government that oversees and administers public services. In most cases, public policy is drafted by the executive branch and submitted to Congress for approval.

Pork-barrel spending projects is actually a waste of taxpayer's money. Now, if a road is required to be built in a specific town then it should go through the same 'needs-based' as other public policy.

The President, who is elected by the people (although the electoral college dilutes this), controls the executive branch, and is to large extent responsible to developing and implementing public policy.

Nearly all parliamentary systems of government functions like this - Parliament has no say or control over appropriations. It's all determined by executive branch and approved by Parliament.

The electoral college dilutes nothing. How do we elect: it's not first past the post!

 

[Auggie]

Not sure what you mean by developing and implementing public policy. Can you give me an example?

Well, who came up with the idea of social security? Was it Congress or was the Roosevelt administration?

If parliament has the power to approve or disapprove appropriation bills, then I'd say parliament DOES have a say and control over the appropriations from the executive branch. You are describing a dictatorship. Where the dictator or autocrat creates the rules, and the legislature obeys the rules(rubber-stamps).

My proposal is exactly the same as the above - the President submits estimates and appropriations to Congress who either approves them or disapproves them.

In my proposal, I never said that Congress cannot approve or disapprove appropriations; they just can't AMEND them (except with a two-thirds majority) - they have to give either a yes/no vote to the whole bill.

 

[Shellandshilo1956]

Well, who came up with the idea of social security? Was it Congress or was the Roosevelt administration?

My proposal is exactly the same as the above - the President submits estimates and appropriations to Congress who either approves them or disapproves them.

In my proposal, I never said that Congress cannot approve or disapprove appropriations; they just can't AMEND them (except with a two-thirds majority) - they have to give either a yes/no vote to the whole bill.

Sorry, I'm just becoming confused. Congress already can approve, disapprove, or make changes in any appropriations bill(remember financing building the wall?), sent to them by the President. And congress will vote on the entire bill. But this has nothing to do with the line item veto powers.

We are talking about the President signing a bill into law, and then changing parts of it. Congress would then need a two-thirds majority vote to get rid of the law the President signed.

 

[Auggie]

Sorry, I'm just becoming confused. Congress already can approve, disapprove, or make changes in any appropriations bill(remember financing building the wall?), sent to them by the President. And congress will vote on the entire bill. But this has nothing to do with the line item veto powers.

We are talking about the President signing a bill into law, and then changing parts of it. Congress would then need a two-thirds majority vote to get rid of the law the President signed.

My answer was in response to your claim that 'if the Parliament has the power to approve or disapprove the appropriations from the government, then this is all right.'

That was another one of my proposals where I suggested that Congress can't amend appropriations except by a two-thirds vote but could disapprove or approve them by a simple majority.

 

[Shellandshilo1956]

My answer was in response to your claim that 'if the Parliament has the power to approve or disapprove the appropriations from the government, then this is all right.'

That was another one of my proposals where I suggested that Congress can't amend appropriations except by a two-thirds vote but could disapprove or approve them by a simple majority.

Then we are in agreement.