From: niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.usa.constitution
Subject: Re: Dangers of line item veto.  [Was: Yes to line item veto]
Date: 14 Sep 92 02:00:24 GMT
Organization: Princeton University
Originator: news@nimaster

In <ART.92Sep13181955@world.std.com> art@world.std.com (Al Thompson) writes:
>In article <1992Sep13.211111.29449@Princeton.EDU> niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent) writes:
>   In article <1992Sep13.171425.6225@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary) writes:
>   >In article <1992Sep13.045206.8124@eskimo.celestial.com> delisle@eskimo.celestial.com (Ben Delisle) writes:

>   >>	The danger I see with a line item veto, is the president
>   >>could, scrach out the word   'not' from the sentence fragment 
>   >>'is not permitted' making it into 'is permitted' thus totaly changing
>   >> the meaning of a new bill.

>   >This isn't anything like the line-item veto I've heard discussed: The
>   >President can't _edit_ a bill, simply veto sections of it (though,
>   >admittidly, "section" needs to be better defined.) The idea is to

>   While this isn't the *meaning* of line-item veto, I wouldn't put it past
>   Bush and his statist judges to attempt to redefine it this way.

>Again, more liberal crap predicting the future without a shred of
>supporting evidence.  Now, it will become gospel that this is what Bush
>will do.

I was making a cynical claim about *my* belief as to what Bush is
capable of.  I was not saying "It will happen."  However, if you want
evidence, look at the gag rule.  

>   >allow the President to seperate unrelated parts of all encompassing
>   >bill. It isn't at all uncommon for Congress to dodge a Presidential
>   >veto, by sticking together totally unrelated items, one of which the
>   >Presdient opposes and one which he suppports. A line-item veto is
>   >intended to curb this abuse. (By the way, it there anything in

>   Why do you call it *abuse*?  It's not an abuse, it's a perfectly valid
>   exertion of Congressional powers.  Part of checks and balances.
>   Otherwise the President would have a ridiculous amount of power, and it
>   would take 2/3 of Congress to pass anything.

>Abuse?  I'll tell you how it comes about.  Remember a cute thing called
>the Boland amendment?  Well, it was included as a rider to a continuing
>budget resolution.  President Reagan's only choices were to sign the bill
>or allow the Government to shut down.  He chose not to close the  Gov't.
>And for that we got Torquemada Walsh.

This is another great argument.  Whenever a Republican president signs
something, it's because he was forced into it.  If it was so bad, he
shouldn't have signed it.  If he did sign it, he has no business complaining 
about it.  And then calling it abuse.  

[George Washington, BTW, felt that the only time a president should use a
veto was for unconstitutional legislation, not because he didn't like a
particular policy decision.]

Furthermore, we got Laurence Walsh (a respected Republican judge, not
some liberal crusading wacko) because Ollie decided he was above the law.

I find it ironic that the 'law and order' party, the one that complains
about the ACLU coddling criminals by supporting the Bill of Rights, is
suddenly so upset about a prosecution.

-- 
David M. Nieporent   | Orioles 1992 World Series Champions
niepornt@phoenix.    | Mike Mussina 1992 AL Cy Young Winner
   princeton.edu     | Brady Anderson 1992 AL MVP
Vote Clinton/Gore '92.   Four more months!
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.bush