From: gt38091@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Greg )
Subject: Re: Presidential Line-Item Veto Power
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 01:01:58 GMT

veal@utkvm1.utk.edu (David L. Veal) writes:

>>>     The Constitution does not provide for a line-item veto.  Everything
>>>else is wishful thinking.  (Not that anyone, even the President who swears
>>>to defend the damn thing, bothers to read it.  It's all "elastic clauses"
>>>and "general welfare" clauses.  If that's a recipe for limited government 
>>>I'd hate to see an unlimited one...)

if you are even the least bit politically awake, you'd know that not everything
the government is allowed to do is spelled out verbatum in the Constitution...
even the thought that the government should be restricted to what is explicitly
stated in the Constitution is a joke...there are too many things that could come
up...


>>But it does describe a limited government, and you need to understand what
>>the Founders meant by their words (as described by themselves in documents
>>such as the Federalist Papers) to fully appreciate it.  If you examine the
>>first 10 ammendments you will notice that they are mostly negations of
>>Federal power.  This is what the States feared, a strong central government
>>which would dominate them (Hmm, seems like it happened in spite of the
>>Founders - score one for the Statist Liberals).

hmmn...isn't that one major difference between democrats and republicans in
that republicans have been trying to get government out of areas where it has
no business...i.e deregulation???...does that make democrats unconstitutional???


>     We must confine ourselves to what the Constitution *says* as oppose
>to what it *should* say.  Where the Constitution is lacking, it should
>be amended.  "Interpreting" a line-item veto because "it is necessary"
>defeats the purpose of writing the law down in the first place.

so what you're saying is that we don't even need a supreme court, since
whatever's in the Constitution is law, and that's it?!?...then why is there
a provision in the Constitution for a Supreme Court???...hey, the primary
function of government is to provide for the people that which they can't 
provide for themselves (i.e. military, police, etc...)...this is a huge respon-
sibility, and that's why the "necessary and proper" clause is in there.


*******************************************************************************
* Gregory Tao                      | E-mail to:  gt38091@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu     * 
* Univ. of IL at Urbana-Champaign  |        OR      gtao@vmd.cso.uiuc.edu     *
* Department of Computer Science   |        OR      gtao@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu     *
* --------------------------------------------------------------------------- *
*                                                                             *
*  	``Change, suddenly, is everywhere we look, sweeping empires and       *
*    ideologies before it, shaping a new era even as we watch. Such moments   *
*    are rare. Today we stand at such a moment.''                             * 
*                                                                             *
*******************************************************************************

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.individualism,alt.activism