News Article: Tea party favorite finishes 5th

[TexasBama]

Which single Republican voted for the budget reconciliation?

Ultimately every Republican in Congress voted against the bill, as did a number of Democrats. Vice President Al Gore broke a tie in the Senate on both the Senate bill and the conference report. The House bill passed 219-213.[1] The House passed the conference report on Thursday, August 5, 1993, by a vote of 218 to 216 (217 Democrats and 1 independent (Sanders (VT-I)) voting in favor; 41 Democrats and 175 Republicans voting against), and the Senate passed the conference report on the last day before their month's vacation, on Friday, August 6, 1993, by a vote of 51 to 50 (50 Democrats plus Vice President Gore voting in favor, 6 Democrats (Lautenberg (D-NJ), Bryan (D-NV), NunnJohnston (D-LA), Boren (D-OK), and Shelby (D-AL) now (R-AL)) and 44 Republicans voting against). President Clinton signed the bill on August 10, 1993. (D-GA),

Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This also, on GHWB's watch,

[ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnibus_Budget_Reconciliation_Act_of_1990]Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

You're old enough to remember being able to deduct interest on credit cards and car notes.

 

[jthomas666]

The Clinton Administration fought against the line-item veto in court and the court, somehow found it unconstitutional.

My memory may be going, but I vaguely remember Clinton specifically requesting the Line Item Veto in one of his SOTUs...

 

[92tide]

My memory may be going, but I vaguely remember Clinton specifically requesting the Line Item Veto in one of his SOTUs...

hippy

 

[swoop10]

hippy

Are you becoming a regular in here again?

 

[92tide]

Are you becoming a regular in here again?

no, just experiencing spasms

also, i have a clock at my desk that i swear is running at half speed today.

 

[Tidewater]

My memory may be going, but I vaguely remember Clinton specifically requesting the Line Item Veto in one of his SOTUs...

You are correct. I stand corrected. This was the one plank of the Contract with America he supported.
Liberal Democrats, Left-wing Republicans like Hatfield (back when there were such things) fought it.
Left-wing loose construction members of the SCOTUS, using typical sloppy logic, declared it unconstitutional.

How Clinton employed the LIV was worth scrutininzing. "The Wall Street Journal [reported that ]the administration reportedly offered to withdraw a threatened line item veto of a $1.5 million cemetery expansion in Rep. Sonny Callahan's (R-AL) district in exchange for his support of IMF funding. Such political horse trading constituted an abuse of the item veto."Congressional testimony on the LIV
Clinton liked it because it gave him another lever to pull in political log-rolling games, something English Whigs called "corruption." Still, if the two options are to not spend the money or spending only up the limit passed by Congress, even this abuse is acceptable since it is is over spending limits.

The big picture on the Federal budget was that Clinton fought against balancing the budget and had to be dragged kicking and screaming to a balanced budget by the end of the decade. To not see this is to wear ideological blinders.

 

[TexasBama]

My memory may be going, but I vaguely remember Clinton specifically requesting the Line Item Veto in one of his SOTUs...

And Reagan too. It was law for about a year 96-97 until SCOTUS ruled against it

 

[jthomas666]

Left-wing loose construction members of the SCOTUS, using typical sloppy logic, declared it unconstitutional.

Left-wing, loose constructionists like Renquist and Thomas?

 

[It's On A Slab]

Left-wing, loose constructionists like Renquist and Thomas?

Scalito, too.

 

[Tidewater]

Left-wing, loose constructionists like Renquist and Thomas?

Renquist and Thomas are not perfect. It might come as a surprise to you, but I could not care less about a political party, and I am no respecter of persons, but I am intensely interested in principles. If Thomas or Renquist decide a case according to incorrect principles, their decision will receive my condemnation. The majority opinion in Clinton v New York is loosely argued.
I am at a loss to find the article of the Federal constitution that prohibits Congress from passing a bill with the provision that the President can line through a line item and veto that item.
If Congress passes a bill with that provision, who the heck is the SCOTUS to tell Congress they can't do that?

Implicit in your line of argument here is the idea that a balanced budget is a good thing. On this we apparently agree.
Which party between 1993 and 2001 was the party working for a balanced budget and which party was trying to maintain deficit spending and even expand the deficit?
If the Democrats were remotely interested in balancing the Federal budget, why did they not do it in those years when they held the White House, and both houses of Congress 9EITHER 1993-1995 OR 2009-2010)? Why was a balanced budget only a reality after the Democrat party lost both houses of Congress 1995-2001?

 

[Tidewater]

Scalito, too.

You mean Alito (whose nickname is "Scalito" for his closeness to Scalia's positions)?
Alito wasn't on the SCOTUS in 1998 when Clinton v New York was handed down.

 

[jthomas666]

Implicit in your line of argument here is the idea that a balanced budget is a good thing. On this we apparently agree.
Which party between 1993 and 2001 was the party working for a balanced budget and which party was trying to maintain deficit spending and even expand the deficit?

I made no argument, implied or otherwise, but rather pointed out errors on your part.

If the Democrats were remotely interested in balancing the Federal budget, why did they not do it in those years when they held the White House, and both houses of Congress 9EITHER 1993-1995 OR 2009-2010)? Why was a balanced budget only a reality after the Democrat party lost both houses of Congress 1995-2001?

For someone who claims not to care about a political party, you certainly seem intent on vilifying a single party.

 

[Nate Harris]

I am at a loss to find the article of the Federal constitution that prohibits Congress from passing a bill with the provision that the President can line through a line item and veto that item.

Once a bill passes Congress it is presented to the president and the next step of the process is extremely well-defined by the Constitution. I quote Article I, Section 7 here as it defines the president's veto power...

if he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the objections at large on their journal, and proceed to reconsider it.

Here's the really important part of that passage. When a president feels unwilling to permit a bill to pass into law then the appropriate forum for the reconsideration of its specific language is in the Congress. This is a separation of powers issue which the Constitution states very precisely. This passage tells us that Congress and Congress alone will decide the exact wording of any bill. The president shall not redesign it any way. Instead, he or she will either permit it to become law or return it to the Congress for reconsideration. The Constitution allows for no other option.

Just for the record, I think the line item veto is a great idea and I would support a constitutional amendment to give the president that power. That said, I believe the Supreme Court made the correct decision in Clinton v. New York. The words of Article I, Section 7 do not permit the president to delete passages of a specific bill so as to allow only a portion of it to gain the force of law. Article I, Section 7 tells us in no uncertain terms that Congress and Congress alone will decide the passages which can be included in any statute.

When a president rejects a bill its words will be reconsidered in every single detail by the Congress. Congress can re-submit a newly-worded bill to the president or else override the veto by super-majority. Otherwise, that bill shall not have any chance to pass into law. This is what the Constitution says. In the end, the Constitution tells us that every word that makes it into American federal law will be approved by Congress. Congress is the only body empowered to write or re-write the text of any bill.

That's the separation of powers as the Founders defined it.

 

[Tidewater]

I made no argument, implied or otherwise, but rather pointed out errors on your part.

I apologize. I mistook yours for the virtuous position.

For someone who claims not to care about a political party, you certainly seem intent on vilifying a single party.

If the Democrat party were to return to its former virtuous positions, I would be a Democrat supporter.
Republicans are frequently wrong; Democrats today are almost always wrong.
Even when they embrace a good/beneficial/proper position (e.g. President Obama's assertion about banks, "If you are too big to fail, you are too big and should be restructured so you are not so big."), the Democrat party has a tendency of not delivering on the rhetoric.
Jefferson was right to opposing Hamilton's crony capitalism, the Democratic Republicans were correct to oppose the Federalists' Alien Act and the Sedition Act, Democrats was correct to oppose Marshall's judicial usurpations, Jacksonian Democrats were correct to oppose the Bank of the United States, Democrats were correct in opposing Whigs & Republicans on protective tariffs. I support Democrats when they are correct. It just doesn't happen very frequently any more. When it does, Democrats will have no more cordial supporter.

 

[Tidewater]

That's the separation of powers as the Founders defined it.

Nate, it warms my heart to see you argue a point from the perspective of the Founders' intent.
I will concede the point.

Now, if only this level of adherence to the intentions of the Founders were the standard by which all Federal policies were judged...

 

[GulfCoastTider]

That's just silly. You're attempting to broaden the definition to the point where it's meaningless. It's like claiming that because you have money in your checking account, you're part of the Banking Industry.

I have money in a 401k, but I don't have any say in the day to day operations of a given company. While my retirement is to a large extent tied to the performance of the companies in my portfolio. I'm not in a position to get a multimillion dollar bonus regardless of a given company's performance. I can't specify a specific company in which my money will be invested . And I sure as hell am not in a position to support or oppose legislation that might help or hinder a company because even if I did know what companies my funds are invested in, those companies might change in two days, and those same policies might be working against me. And of course, my job performance doesn't directly impact the performance of the companies in my portfolio.

So me, part of Big Corporation?

Please.

Yes, you. Every policy that harms the profitability or competitive position of a publicly traded company affects every one of the company's shareholders, even if they don't
participate in corporate governance.

And the Big Bonus mantra y'all trot out side by side with the Big Corp canard is just as disingenuous. Those bonuses are contractually obligated and tied to executive performance. As a shareholder, I want to see those checks mushroom, while my companies rake in sick, obscene profits.

So should anyone else with a position in the common stock of corporate America. Even you.
Posted via Mobile Device

 

[bamacon]

Nate, it warms my heart to see you argue a point from the perspective of the Founders' intent.
I will concede the point.

Now, if only this level of adherence to the intentions of the Founders were the standard by which all Federal policies were judged...

Here! Here!

And Nate was right on the money about the ruling and the need for a Constitutional Amendment for the line-item veto. If the anti-pork MoC (of which the Pres. was and many others claim to be) really are interested in earmark reform this would be the PERFECT time and atmosphere to introduce this particular amendment. Let's see where these folks stand on true CHANGE.

 

[It's On A Slab]

Nate, it warms my heart to see you argue a point from the perspective of the Founders' intent.
I will concede the point.

Now, if only this level of adherence to the intentions of the Founders were the standard by which all Federal policies were judged...

I remember reading in the Federalist Papers about how it was very important that the Dutch East India Company enjoy full rights and privileges under the Constitution's Bill of Rights.

 

[Tidewater]

I remember reading in the Federalist Papers about how it was very important that the Dutch East India Company enjoy full rights and privileges under the Constitution's Bill of Rights.

It's funny you should mention that corporation, since it was around at the time of the drafting of the Bill of Rights.
Why did those thoughtless fellows forget to protect us against the ravages of foreign corporations?
Obviously, I'm being facetious, but the answer is that they were more concerned with protecting us from the ravages of Congress. The Bill of Rights is largely about carefully restricting the evils Congress may inflict.
An informed electorate is the best defense against a foreign corporation with evil intent.

 

[GulfCoastTider]

I remember reading in the Federalist Papers about how it was very important that the Dutch East India Company enjoy full rights and privileges under the Constitution's Bill of Rights.

I don't think the Dutch East India Company was mentioned in the Federalist Papers (and I'm too lazy to search).

But it is true that the Revolution itself and eventually the Constitution was as much about protecting and promoting commerce as it was lofty notions of We the People.

The Colonists had a nice gig going with traders, dealing in all manner of goods between the states and various other colonies in the Indies. They were getting rich. The Brits took notice and tried to step in, seeking to regulate that trade, tax it and get a cut for Mother England.

The Colonists were hearing none of that.

You could say that the American Revolution was, in part, the country's first "turf battle."