I've been saying for years there should be rules in congress that prohibit lawmakers from inserting unrelated provisions in bills, especially when they do it mostly for political "gotcha" purposes. That applies to both parties.
Nailed it. Each individual item should be voted on. Instead of these guys working 10 days a year, let's get our money's worth.
I recall President Reagan wanting line item veto, which is a very good idea. I'd like to advance what I call line item voting in order to get rid of the crap these assholes put into a bill.
I recall President Reagan wanting line item veto, which is a very good idea. I'd like to advance what I call line item voting in order to get rid of the crap these assholes put into a bill.
The Republican-controlled Congress voted to give the president the power of line-item veto, and did it when Bill Clinton held the office. The SCOTUS ruled it unconstitutional.
You understand something that's demonstrably false? Republicans certainly have demonstrated hypocrisy in a number of issues, but it is an outright lie when Democrats continue to insist Republicans weren't willing to give aid to Hurricane Sandy victims. Republicans proposed a $24 billion relief bill, but Democrats demanded $60 billion because they wanted to use the storm as an excuse to fund a hundred other pet projects unrelated to the storm.
The aid is mostly for infrastructure assistance; costs that go well beyond what any state/community could reasonably envision. I have no problem with tax dollars going for such causes.
Hey, then they would have to read the bill. Can't have that.
Dude read what he wrote. It did happen despite your cynicism. It failed for constitutional reasons.
It also entrenched the idea of slave-ownership. The CSA constitution virtually guaranteed that any anti-slave law or policy would be unconstitutional.
I disagree that line item veto is a good idea. I think it gives the President too much power. He could veto an important part of the bill and sign the rest into law even though most representatives might have voted against the bill without that provision.
And like the US constitution could be amended. In fact, it was easier to amend the Confederate Constitution.
FREEDOM!
I highly doubt the CSA would have amended their constitution to allow any sort of anti-slavery legislation. Slavery was the cornerstone of the CSA government.
The CSA constitution did prohibit the use of funds from one state being used for infrastructure in another state. It was their thumb-of-the-nose to the so-called "Tariff of Abominations". So if this 1000 year rain in South Carolina had occurred under the CSA's watch they would just have to cowboy up and rebuild their own damn bridges.
So why does a clown like Branstadt still have it? I have always been opposed to line item veto no matter who is in office. It's simply wrong.
We should honor this southern heritage and do our best not to get them dependent on government handouts.
That was the reason. Both sides are guilty of larding up must pass legislation. The Sandy bill was a prime example
Wouldn't it be fun to find out? Turkish guys do it with olive oil:
You're a strange one.
It was especially lacking in the part where it protected the institution of slavery. And they weren't fixin' to change that anytime soon.
