The line-item veto is unconstitutional
The line-item veto is unconstitutional
Incorrect. In the federal system "a budget" does not authorize actual spending...it's just a plan or framework. "Appropriations" or spending bills are what authorizes money to be spent. That's what he signed. It has the force of law.
The president cannot take money that is allocated for one agency and shift it to another. He has latitude on spending or not spending but he can't take allocated money from, for example, the DoD and give it to the FBI.
I guarantee that the lions share of this $1+ trillion will be spent in the next 6 months...with some token "refusals".
Not as long as congress has the opportunity to override it like all other vetoes. I'm of the opinion to let them give it a go. YMMV.
Wrong. Obama did that very thing and Congress didn't say a word. Shipping containers full of cash ended up in the coffers of our enemies while everybody was wondering what the Great Disappointment was doing with the money in the bill. Trump knows this. Trump was watching the Chicago Grifter abuse the system. And Trump knows that's now a precedent.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3641992/posts
There's already indications he's going to use the bill to counter the intent of the pimps in Congress.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3642280/posts
The fact is, neither you, nor anyone on this forum (including myself), have any idea what President Trump is going to do with this. All I know is that he has confounded his enemies and repeatedly spat on their agenda. He's the consummate businessmen playing hardball against a bunch of substance addicted entitlement flunkies. Flunkies who chose politics because they're too stupid to survive in the real world.
I'm not going to jump on any "bash Trump" bandwagons. That's absurd. The whores in DC are playing checkers. He's playing chess. I'll give him time. Then we'll see who wins.
No. Go do some reading on the difference between a federal "budget" and "appropriations".
The omnibus spending bill is a compilation of a multitude of funds appropriation bills to allocate funds for subdivisions of the federal government. The appropriations and funds therein are earmarked for that subdivision. It has the force of law. The only latitude the President has in shifting those funds is within said subdivision. That is how Obama moved money to our enemies.
The only "precedent" is the now long standing one of these stupid Omnibus bills. It's lazy governance. Congress shouldn't have passed it and Trump never should've signed it.
The Impoundment Control Act of 1974 limits the authority of the President to refuse to spend allocated funds. Anyone cheering for Trump to subvert that act, and using "Obama did it" as an excuse, has a serious lack of understanding about how our system of government is/was designed to work.
The President is not a dictator, and he is not in charge of the appropriation and allocation of federal funds...even if you like him. Don't forget, if you cheer for the President to have this kind of authority, you just might be well and truly F*cd when someone you don't like comes into power.
Dennis they know that we know. They just don’t care. The government is so corrupt things are never gonna be good again unless we physically do something to enact positive change. And people in this county are too busy living their lives to even care or notice. People like us are too few and far between to make any kind of a difference. We can send emails and call till the cows come home and nothing will change. Our reps and senators don’t give a rats rear about us. More and more of our rights are gonna be infringed upon until they are gone forever. That is the governments goal. It isn’t just a Democrat thing. It’s our entire government. They all need to go. We can’t trust any of them. Our 2A is under heavy assault and people in the gun community act like it’s not happening. Or they make jokes about it. Or I get told I’m paranoid and it won’t ever happen. It IS happening for the millionth time. I guess we will all just sit here and complain while our country implodes.
https://abovethelaw.com/2018/03/a-q...veto-has-already-been-ruled-unconstitutional/
President Donald Trump just asked Congress to give him a line-item veto. It’s a power enjoyed by a number of state governors, and it allows them to veto specific parts of laws they otherwise like. It’s a terrifying tool of executive power.
And the Supreme Court has emphatically ruled that it’s an unconstitutional power for the President of the United States.
The case that I promise you Trump has never even heard of is Clinton v. City of New York. Bob Dole introduced the Line Item Veto Act in 1996. It passed both chambers of Congress, and Bill Clinton signed the legislation on April 9, 1996. On November 5, 1996, Bill Clinton roundly defeated Bob Dole in the presidential election, an outcome I’m sure Bob Dole did not anticipate when he gave his adversary such enormous power.
The Line Item Veto Act specifically gave the president the power to use the line-item veto in budget bills, exactly the kind of bill President Trump unhappily signed today. Clinton used the veto to strike a few provisions in the 1997 Balanced Budget Act, and it affected some hospitals in New York City, which promptly challenged the constitutionality of the power.
In a 6-3 decision, the Court held the line-item veto to be unconstitutional. Justice John Paul Stevens wrote the majority opinion, but let’s look at the breakdown of the justices because SOME OF THEM ARE STILL ALIVE TODAY, don’t ya know.
For the Majority: Stevens, William Rehnquist, Anthony Kennedy, David Souter, Clarence Thomas, Ruth Bader Ginsburg (RBG is a Clinton appointee, don’t forget).
Dissent: Stephen Breyer, Anontin Scalia, and Sandra Day O’Connor.
Yes, folks, there were cases where Justices RBG and Clarence Thomas were on one side while Justices Antonin Scalia and Stephen Breyer were on the other side. It was a simpler time, when the Court wasn’t constantly being asked to solve ALL THE THINGS and could just occasionally focus on non-ideological issues of law.
Writing for the majority, Justice Stevens explained that under the “Presentment Clause,” the president was required to approve or reject “whole legislation.” He said that the Line Item Veto Act allowed the president to “amend” legislation, which was an assault on the powers given to Congress under Article I. “[T]his act gives the president the unilateral power to change the text of duly enacted statutes,” wrote Stevens.
Justice Anthony Kennedy — whose opinions on matters are kind of a big deal just at the moment — concurred, but wrote separately. From the Washington Post:
Justice Anthony M. Kennedy cut to the political chase. “Failure of political will does not justify unconstitutional remedies,” he said in a concurring opinion.
The case was decided in June of 1998. That’s six months after the Monica Lewinsky scandal broke. I’m not saying that one has anything to do with the other, but it’s worth noting that giving a president authority to change laws of Congress, as he sees fit, in the middle of an ongoing inquiry into whether the president’s sex life led to an obstruction of justice is probably not a thing that the other branches are really that into.
The important point is this: Donald Trump is asking for a power that was ruled unconstitutional just 20 years ago. Fully three of the justices who ruled it was unconstitutional then are still on the Court now. Even if you assume Justice Clarence Thomas would flip to the other side because he is a craven partisan, one must also assume that Justice Breyer would flip to the other side and cancel out the lack of intellectual integrity.
Donald Trump knows none of this. But you should. It totally makes sense that you should be more informed than the President of the United States about the limits of his own power.
And the Supreme Court has emphatically ruled that it’s an unconstitutional power for the President of the United States.
The case that I promise you Trump has never even heard of is Clinton v. City of New York. Bob Dole introduced the Line Item Veto Act in 1996. It passed both chambers of Congress, and Bill Clinton signed the legislation on April 9, 1996. On November 5, 1996, Bill Clinton roundly defeated Bob Dole in the presidential election, an outcome I’m sure Bob Dole did not anticipate when he gave his adversary such enormous power.
The Line Item Veto Act specifically gave the president the power to use the line-item veto in budget bills, exactly the kind of bill President Trump unhappily signed today. Clinton used the veto to strike a few provisions in the 1997 Balanced Budget Act, and it affected some hospitals in New York City, which promptly challenged the constitutionality of the power.
In a 6-3 decision, the Court held the line-item veto to be unconstitutional. Justice John Paul Stevens wrote the majority opinion, but let’s look at the breakdown of the justices because SOME OF THEM ARE STILL ALIVE TODAY, don’t ya know.
For the Majority: Stevens, William Rehnquist, Anthony Kennedy, David Souter, Clarence Thomas, Ruth Bader Ginsburg (RBG is a Clinton appointee, don’t forget).
Dissent: Stephen Breyer, Anontin Scalia, and Sandra Day O’Connor.
Yes, folks, there were cases where Justices RBG and Clarence Thomas were on one side while Justices Antonin Scalia and Stephen Breyer were on the other side. It was a simpler time, when the Court wasn’t constantly being asked to solve ALL THE THINGS and could just occasionally focus on non-ideological issues of law.
Writing for the majority, Justice Stevens explained that under the “Presentment Clause,” the president was required to approve or reject “whole legislation.” He said that the Line Item Veto Act allowed the president to “amend” legislation, which was an assault on the powers given to Congress under Article I. “[T]his act gives the president the unilateral power to change the text of duly enacted statutes,” wrote Stevens.
Justice Anthony Kennedy — whose opinions on matters are kind of a big deal just at the moment — concurred, but wrote separately. From the Washington Post:
Justice Anthony M. Kennedy cut to the political chase. “Failure of political will does not justify unconstitutional remedies,” he said in a concurring opinion.
The case was decided in June of 1998. That’s six months after the Monica Lewinsky scandal broke. I’m not saying that one has anything to do with the other, but it’s worth noting that giving a president authority to change laws of Congress, as he sees fit, in the middle of an ongoing inquiry into whether the president’s sex life led to an obstruction of justice is probably not a thing that the other branches are really that into.
The important point is this: Donald Trump is asking for a power that was ruled unconstitutional just 20 years ago. Fully three of the justices who ruled it was unconstitutional then are still on the Court now. Even if you assume Justice Clarence Thomas would flip to the other side because he is a craven partisan, one must also assume that Justice Breyer would flip to the other side and cancel out the lack of intellectual integrity.
Donald Trump knows none of this. But you should. It totally makes sense that you should be more informed than the President of the United States about the limits of his own power.
I have done the requisite reading. I suggest you do the same.
We might be in bad shape if a president comes into power exercising the authority to which I allude? Are you serious? Do you live under a rock?
For 28 years prior to President Trump coming into office that's the
type of president we've had. Escalating until Jorge Busho destroys the Republican party and O'Bunghole finishes what Bush started. Now we've got a pro America conservative and you're bent out of shape.
And, I just now recognized your agenda. Believe what you will because you're going to anyway. Just stop masquerading as conservative. You're not.
I’m not a conservative because I believe a President and Congress should follow the rules and laws regarding federal budgeting, allocation, appropriation and use of funds?
That’s rich. Lol.
You don’t even understand the difference between an appropriations bill and a budget...the conversation is pointless lol.
That’s rich. Lol.
You don’t even understand the difference between an appropriations bill and a budget...the conversation is pointless lol.
Last edited:
Similar threads
