From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Subject: Re: Who's weakening the constitution?
Organization: Texas Instruments Inc
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 13:43:23 GMT

In <168C1ABFF.MCMASTER@LSTC2VM.stortek.com> MCMASTER@LSTC2VM.stortek.com (Jim McMaster) writes:

>This will be my last post on this subject (in case anyone cares).  Mr.
>McCall's and my arguments are getting repetitive, and I doubt anyone
>else wants to listen.  Mr. McCall is welcome to take a "last shot" if
>he wants.  I stand by my opinions, and he is welcome to his.  I am not
>saying everything he says is all wet, but most of it is a little damp.

Well, I don't really have time to play much right now.  I'm leaving on
vacation, so I'll see you in a week or so if you're still around.
Anywa, to be brief.

> 
>In article <1992Dec17.151710.22877@mksol.dseg.ti.com>
>mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
> 
>>In <168BE7EBE.MCMASTER@LSTC2VM.stortek.com> MCMASTER@LSTC2VM.stortek.com (Jim McMaster) writes:
>>>
>>>The President can do exactly as you suggest...he can include line items
>>>in his veto message now, with a "remove these and I will sign it".
>>>Congress can then override the veto, or remove the items and pass the
>>>modified bill.  How does this differ from your proposal?
>>
>>The Congress is not currently obligated to resubmit the unobjected to
>>items of the bill for approval separately from those which are
>>'stricken' by the veto.  This allows them to hold good things
>>'hostage' in order to try to ram through something they want.
>>Congress should pass rules REQUIRING itself to resubmit minus the
>>objected to line items and with no other changes.
>>
>The Constitution says the President must either sign or veto the "bill"
>within a certain time, or it becomes law without his signature.  If he
>lines out certain items before sending the bill back, he has done
>neither of these things.  If Congress just ignores the bill until the
>time limit passes, what happens to it?

Sure he has.  He's vetoed it.  If Congress just ignores it when he
returns it to them, it disapppears.

> 
>As for holding items "hostage" to get what they want, that is called
>"politics."  If the President is not willing to compromise, and can get
>exactly what he wants by vetoing line items, why have a legislature at
>all?  Just let the executive become a monarch and make whatever laws he
>desires.  Congress could still easily hold items "hostage"  they can
>just include them in a separate bill, and refuse to bring it to a vote
>until the President signs another bill that has what they want.  If he
>vetoes the first bill, the new rules you suggest would not require them
>to send back what he wants.

The new rules I suggest would require them to send back the bill minus
the line items that he marked out, except for those they can keep in
by a 2/3 vote.  Note that this is all CONGRESSIONAL rules.  Nothing
the President does changes.

> 
>>>>Because you can come up with a way of implementing it that doesn't
>>>>work does not make all ways of doing it unworkable.
>>>>
>>>Then come up with one that does work, that does not violate the
>>>Constitution.
>>
>>I just did.  But Congress has to make the rule for itself.  Just to
>>lay it out, the President gets a Bill and line-item vetos parts of it,
>>returning it to Congress.  Congress has a rule which requires them to
>>take a 2/3 vote on each of those line items to see if they remain in
>>the bill.  Those which fail the 2/3 vote are stricken and the Bill is
>>then returned to the President.  Note a couple of things about this.
>>First, it changes only what CONGRESS does -- which they can do under
>>their own procedural rules, according to the Constitution.  The
>>President does NOT need to sign the new Bill, although he's going to
>>look pretty damned bad if they give him what he wants and he then
>>refuses to sign.  Besides which, since the things he objected to in
>>the prior version of the Bill have already been approved by a 2/3
>>vote, it would be pretty futile to veto it again (since Congress has
>>already demonstrated that they can and will override).
>>
>No, your rules *do* change what the President does.  Instead of signing
>or vetoing the bill, as specified in the Constitution, he line-item
>vetoes parts of it.  This is a new option for the President, not listed
>in the Constitution.  As above, what if Congress just ignores the bill
>until after the deadline?  Does it then become law without the
>PResident's signature, as specified in the Constitution?

No, because it's been vetoed.  This is real simple.  Funny how you
don't get it.

> 
>>So, where is this unconstitutional?  How is it different from
>>'enhanced recision', which both Congress and the President (present
>>and incumbant) agree that Congress has the power to do?
>>
>I already told you I do not know what "enhanced recission".  You gave
>me a vague explantion that it is like impoundment.  Since I still do
>not know the mechanics, I cannot tell how it differs from your
>proposal.

I told you EXACTLY what it is.  Congressional leaders have already
said they are going to give it to Bill Clinton.  The only difference
between Enhanced Recision and a Line Item Veto is that with Enhanced
Recision it only requires a majority vote to keep the line item in.

>>>>
>>>Why not?  The wording on the veto power is just as explicit.
>>
>>Not exactly, no.  The veto power is described, but how Congress deal
>>with it to get a 2/3 override vote is THEIR business.
>>
>No, it is not their business.  When the President vetoes a bill, they
>can make the entire, unaltered bill law by getting a two-thirds vote,
>or it dies.  You are proposing the bill be amended after final passage,
>with the President having the final say over what the bill can contain.
>I think your proposed mechanism not only does not pass Constitutional
>requirements, but is unworkable as well.

I think you're well beyond damp with this.  I find it interesting that
you can assert this after demonstrating that you don't understand at
all what I've proposed or how it would work.

>>
>>>There are state laws now that specify how electors must vote.  These
>>>are widely viewed as unenforceable, and would likely be thrown out if
>>>challenged.  Electors are federal office-holders, not state, and state
>>>restrictions on voting behavior of federal officials are very likely
>>>invalid.  Also, how can they tell for whom an elector will vote?
>>
>>Ask them.  The States are EXPLICITY allowed to pick electors any way
>>they please.
>>
>Yes, they can pick electors in any manner they choose, but once chosen,
>the state has no control over their actions.  As for the "Ask them",
>what if they lie, or change their minds after being chosen?  What if
>the candidate they originally pick dies?

What if the moon falls down and kills us all?  In the entire history
of the Electoral College, there has only been a handful (one?) Elector
who voted differently than he was 'supposed' to.  Why do you think
this would suddenly change in the event of State mandated term limits? 

>>>
>>>It also does not say anywhere that any other requirements can be added.
>>
>>Yes, and it does not explicitly say that they can't, and powers not
>>explicitly described are reserved to the several States or the People,
>>respectively.
>>
>The Constitution does not say the requirements for holding office are
>minimums.  It merely states what they are.  Individual states cannot
>amend the Constitution.

Go read it again.  It quite plainly is listing SOME requirements.  For
example, it specifies a minimum age, not the age that they MUST be.
If a state passed a law that said that their Congressmen had to be
over 40, that would certainly meet the requirements as set forth in
the Constitution, wouldn't it?

> 
>>>That is why the case will go to the federal courts, where the issue
>>>will be decided.  In my opinion, the laws will be overturned.  In
>>>yours, they will not.  Let's wait and see, because neither of us knows
>>>for sure.
>>
>>Well, we've now gone from what the decision OUGHT to be to trying to
>>guess what the Court will decide.  Note that these are NOT the same
>>thing.
>>
>I have stated many times in this thread I think the courts "ought" to
>throw the term limit measures out.  Not only are term limits a bad
>idea, but the means of implementing them are of dubious
>constitutionality.  You have the opposite opinion, as is your right.

But you have given ZERO reason why the Court (not courts) 'ought' to
do that, besides your opinion that they ought to 'because'.  

> 
>What I am saying is that our opinions do not matter in the least, and
>we cannot "settle" this question by arguing our opinions.  Whatever the
>courts finally decide *IS* what the Constitution says, whether we agree
>with the decision or not.  I frankly am tired of arguing with you,
>because we are repeating ourselves without getting anywhere.  I think
>your reading of the Constitution os seriously skewed, and no doubt you
>think the same about mine.  This discussion is getting to be a waste of
>our time, and boring to boot.  At this point, I think you just want to
>argue, and I do not feel like obliging you.

And we could quite easily switch people above.  In other words, what
you're telling me is that because I won't simply agree with your
magnificent wisdom, my reading is 'skewed' and I only want to argue.
This is horseshit, needless to say.  It's a pathetic effort to grab
some kind of 'moral high ground' as you stalk off because you can't
logically point to sources to support your opinions.  That's fine, but
don't expect me to engage in a lot of sackclothe and ashes about it.

>>>>
>>>>No, it states THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS.  There is nothing that says
>>>>that states may not add others, as they please.  For example, it
>>>>specifies that House members shall be chose in the same manner as the
>>>>most numerous of the State's legislative houses.  If a state enacts
>>>>term limits on the most numerous of its legislative houses, that would
>>>>seem to put term limits in place for the corresponding Federal offices.
>>>>
>>>Good point...you might be right.  How does that limit the terms of
>>>Senators?
>>
>>The 17th Amendment says that Senators are subject to the same election
>>process as Representatives.  It limits the terms of Senators just the
>>same way it limits the terms of Representatives.
>>
>Okay, if your reasoning of the first point is accurate (which I still
>doubt) then it applies to Senators too.

My question is, if you haven't even READ the Constitution (and your
question about the rules for electing Representatives and Senators
would seem to indicate you have not), where do you get off telling me
that MY reading of it is skewed.  Hell, go read it yourself!  I'll
even SEND you a copy if you want.

>>>Wow....you really think a state could require that only Presidential
>>>candidates (not electors) over six feet tall can appear on the ballot?
>>>REALLY?!?!?  How about only Caucasians?  This is far more than deciding
>>>the "process" by which electors are chosen.  Courts have ruled that
>>>ballot restrictions are valid for the purpose of keeping the ballot to
>>>a reasonable length.  What valid reason could they possible have for
>>>height requirements?  I think you might want to rethink your response.
>>
>>No, I don't think I care to rethink my responses at all.  Except in
>>those cases where other parts of the Constution explicitly prohibit
>>making a distinction (race, color, creed, religion, gender) it would
>>seem that a State could make whatever arbitrary rules it wanted to.
>>Of course, that would probably be difficult to sustain in the face of
>>an activist Court, but are we talking about what the Court might do or
>>what the Constitution says?
>>
>I think these arbitrary rules are difficult to sustain in the face of
>simple intelligence.  Courts ought to be (but rarely are) about simple
>justice.  If you really feel states can discriminate against anyone, at
>any time, on any basis not explicitly prohibited by to Constitution,
>then I am more sure than ever that discussing this with you is a sheer
>waste of time.

Not what I said at all, of course.  Which tactic, as far as I'm
concerned, invalidates pretty much anything further you might have to
say. 

>>>>>
>>>>
>>>                                         Can you honestly say you can
>>>predict the outcome of a Supreme Court case where this was argued?  I
>>>can't.
>>
>>Neither can I, but note that what the Constitution says and what the
>>Court might decide are two different things.
>>
>But what the courts decide *IS* what the Constitution says.

Well, no, it isn't.  If you study the history of Court decisions, you
will find it periodically reversing itself about things.  Did the
wording of the Constitution suddenly change?  Of course not.

>>>>>
>>>>>As above, then why did Congress feel Presidential term limits required
>>>>>a Constitutional Amendment?  The issues are the same.  Qualifications
>>>>>are spelled out in exactly the same detail.
>>>>
>>>>Because they wanted them in ALL THE STATES.  They didn't want a state
>>>>here and state there to do it.  In order for the Feds to impose such a
>>>>requirement on the States, essentially telling them how they may
>>>>choose Electors, they would indeed require a Constitutional amendment.
>>>>Howeer, a State may impose any requirements on itself that it wishes,
>>>>or so the wording in the Constitution seems to say.
>>>>
>>>Is this your supposition as to why they passed an amendment?  Or do you
>>>have some evidence that supports you?  I certainly do not remember any
>>>such assertion at the time (of course, I was about four then ;-)).
>>
>>This requires evidence?  Is it your contention that they DIDN'T want
>>them in all States?  Seems like that would be the one requiring proof,
>>not the other.
>>
>You asserted as fact that the reason Presidential term limits passed as
>an amendment was because they wanted it in all states at once.  I have
>never, through several PoliSci and Constitutional Law classes heard
>anyone say this before, or even implied it is true.  Have you ever
>heard or read it anywhere?
> 
>I am not challenging your assertion by saying "they DIDN'T want them in
>all states."  Of course, they obviously did.  I doubt your assertion
>that this was their only (or even a primary reason) for doing it by
>Constitutional Amendment.  Congress makes many laws that apply to all
>states at once, so would have satisfied this requirement.  I believe
>they passed the amendment for the much simpler reason that they felt
>it was the only Constitutional means by which they could achieve their
>goal.  I believe it is also the only Constitutional way to achieve
>Congressional term limits as well.

It *is* the only Constitutional means by which CONGRESS CAN TELL THE
STATES TO DO THIS SORT OF THING.  If the States decide to go off and
do it on their own, however, it is entirely a different matter.  What
about that don't you understand?  You in fact just agreed with what I
said (it was the only way they could make all the several States do
it). 

>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>The point of my earlier post is that the person who started this thread
>>>>>>>>>was complaining about weakening the Constitution and for following the
>>>>>>>>>original intent of the framers.  Meanwhile, he proposed changes which
>>>>>>>>>did not reflect the original intent, and in a manner which further
>>>>>>>>>weakens the Constitution.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Not at all.  That may have been your point, but it appears to me to
>>>>>>>>have missed the mark.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Your opinion, and you are entitled to it. (**)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>True, but it all comes down to how good your reasons for holding an
>>>>>>opinion are.
>>>>>>
>>>>>And the quality of your reasons for holding an opinion are porely a
>>>>>matter of opinion.
>>>>
>>>>Getting a bit silly, isn't it?
>>>>
>>>Yes, it was silly when you started it....why did you start it. by the
>>>way?  Shall we drop it?
>>
>>Well, no, since we can now quibble about how started it.  My vote is
>>the (**) line above.
>>
>I merely stated you had a right to your opinion.  It was not my intent
>to "start" anything.  This last part is one of the many reasons I do
>not want to argue with you anymore.  You bring pure childishness into
>it, and seem to enjoy it.

Sorry, but those kind of snide, condescending remarks are EXACTLY
intended to 'start' something.  Your final remarks shows you to be the
sort of immature fatuous ass that plays these kinds of rhetorical
games, so I suppose it's a good thing that you make it plain and claim
you've had your last effort at this sort of crap.

Run along and stop wasting everyone's time if you don't want to engage
in reasoned discussion, Jim.

-- 
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,tx.politics,misc.legal