HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: lkk@panix.com (Larry Kolodney)
Subject: Re: Who's weakening the constitution?
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 16:34:02 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: The Devil's Advocate

In <1992Dec13.070641.9436@anasazi.com> karl@anasazi.com (Karl Dussik) writes:


>So do you contend that the practice of bundling hundreds (thousands?) of
>separate spending items togther, calling it a "bill," and submitting it to
>the President with a "take it or leave it" attitude IS consistent with
>original intent?

Since the framers of the Constitution in all likelihood didn't express
an opinion on this subject, it seems that "original intent" doesn't
have much to tell us in this situation.  

The practice you refer to is certainly legitimate within the plain
language of the Constitution, and unless you can point to some
specific statement from The Federalist or elsewhere that such a
practice was disapproved of, I don't think you're in any position to
invoke "original intent." 

Frankly, even if you could find a quote from the Federalist, I don't
think you can say to much about original intent.  All we know about
"original intent" are the opinions of a few influention members of the
Constitutional Convention.  We don't know very much about the
multitudinous reasons why the various state delegates voted "yes."
After all, the Constitution was essentially a negotiated compromise, a
contract in essence.  Like any other contract,  you must refer to the
plain language of the contract [you know, the parol evidence rule], to
determine what it means.  Anything else would be cheating on the
negotiated outcome.


  What about requiring the President to spend every penny
>appropriated - that didn't come about until the Nixon administration as I
>recall.

Ditto.  The Constitution doesn't invision a static unchanging
government structure.  If it did, there would be no need for congress,
just a president to administer the status quo.

-- 
larry kolodney:(lkk@panix.com) 
_(*#&)#*&%)@(*^%_!*&%^!)*&#+!*&$+!?&%+!*&^_)*&#%)*&^%#+&
The past is not dead, it's not even past.   - Wm. Faulkner

Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: goldm@rpi.edu (Mitchell E. Gold)
Subject: Election Results
Organization: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
Distribution: alt
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 20:38:05 GMT

I have election results from Associated Press as of November 5. I'd heard that
some jurisdictions wouldn't finish counting votes as late as 21 days after the
election. Does anyone have more up to date election results? 

Also, I'm looking to find out what states write-in and minor party candidates
ran in.
--
Mitchell Gold, sundance@rpi.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,tx.politics,misc.legal
From: rocky@NeoSoft.com (Joe Mullally)
Subject: Re: Who's weakening the constitution?
Organization: NeoSoft Communications Services -- (713) 684-5900
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 23:45:39 GMT

In article <1992Dec13.070641.9436@anasazi.com> karl@anasazi.com (Karl Dussik) writes:
>
>So do you contend that the practice of bundling hundreds (thousands?) of
>separate spending items togther, calling it a "bill," and submitting it to
>the President with a "take it or leave it" attitude IS consistent with
>original intent? 

	Do you think a single example, displayed on TV to the voters
by Bush, might have done him some good?  I do. So, why didn't he?
I think he underestimated the voter, or just didn't think we could 
comprehend the issues. In any case, he clearly had the power to do
something other than "sign and whine". He chose none of those options.



-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Joe Mullally (rocky@sugar.neosoft.com) PH:713-681-2495
"We need stronger death penalties..." George Bush, debate #2
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:24590 talk.politics.misc:64191
From: mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Who's weakening the constitution?
Date: 14 Dec 92 18:52:20 GMT
Organization: NCR Engineering and Manufacturing Atlanta -- Atlanta, GA

In <168BB84EF.MCMASTER@LSTC2VM.stortek.com> MCMASTER@LSTC2VM.stortek.com (Jim McMaster) writes:

|In article <12134@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM>
|mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson) writes:
|>Either wait one term and then run again, or run for a different office.
|>
|Is this true?  I have not seen the text of the laws, but my
|understanding is that they limit the total number of terms, not the
|number of consecutive terms.

Depends on which state you want to talk about.
| 
|>I disagree with you about term limits, I view them as the first step in
|>regaining control of government.
|>
|Your opinion.  The arguments agains term limits have been hashed over
|here before.  I view them more as the first step toward giving power to
|unelected bureaucrats and staffers who are not subject to term limits.

If this were true, how come some of the most vociferous opponents of
term limits were these same bureaucrats and staffers.  At least that
was the case in California, I am not familiar with other states.
-- 
Mob rule doesn't become any prettier, just because the mob start to call itself
a government.
It ain't charity if you are using someone else's money.
Mark.Wilson@AtlantaGA.NCR.com
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.libertarian
From: VEAL@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal)
Subject: Re: Argument for broadening the veto power (Re: Who's weakening the constitution?)
Organization: University of Tennessee Division of Continuing Education
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 19:02:37 GMT

In article <1992Dec17.071930.29664@mr.med.ge.com> gorney@picard.med.ge.com (Felix Gorney Mfg 4-6983) writes:

>: >Come on people, you know darn well
>: >that Congress oversteps their bounds when they send the President two
>: >completely unrelated things (or 2 hundred) and asks him to either
>: >approve the whole thing or leave it. This has gone far enough,
>: >and we surely need the line item veto.
>: 
>:         I don't think there is any question that Congress can go to far
>: when it does silly things like add military appropriations or local bridge
>: projects to environmental bills.  I think the question, though, is the
>: problem bad enough to require giving the President more power.  And it
>: would give him more power.
>:
>It seems to me that Congress has indeed overstepped it's bounds. Where in the 
>Constitution is it written that a Bill can contain more than one subject?

       Most of what is not written in the Constitution was assumed to be 
being drawn from common law precedent.  My assumption is that any power 
Congress has to have multiple subjects in a bill (how, exactly, though would 
you enforce such a rule?) comes from whatever precedent the British 
Parliament had set up to that point.

>With that in mind, President Bush was advised to simply use a line item veto,
>and then let the Supreme Court decide from there. 

       I think that it is an insane policy to have the government simply 
"try things out" and then see if the courts let them get away with it.

>Bush of course wanted to 
>remain non-confrontational, but look where it's got him. If Clinton has the 
>guts, which I doubt, maybee, he'll try this approach.                 

       Whether Clinton does so or not should be based on what the 
Constitution says, not on how much guts he has.  Guts is following his oath 
to protect and defend the Constitution, not try to get away with things 
because that's the politically expediant thing to do.
       My reading of the Constitution leaves no doubt that the President has 
only one choice regarding Bills, veto or not veto.  However, it also says 
each vote must be passed by the President as well.  It would seem that he 
might have the power to veto resolutions which include things in Bills.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Veal               University of Tennessee Div. of Cont. Education
                         Information Services Group
PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu  (Mail to VEAL@utkvm1.utk.edu will bounce.)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,tx.politics
From: MCMASTER@LSTC2VM.stortek.com (Jim McMaster)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,tx.politics,misc.legal
Subject: Re: Who's weakening the constitution?
Date: 20 Dec 92 15:19:13 GMT
Organization: StorageTek SW Engineering

In article <1992Dec19.235918.4383@mtu.edu>
cescript@mtu.edu (Charles Scripter) writes:
 
>We could push for a Constitutional Amendment prohibiting this "bundling".
>Then the President wouldn't "need" a line item veto...  [BTW, I believe
>Michigan has such a clause in their Consititution, restricting a bill to
>one subject]
>
>--
>Charles Scripter   *   cescript@phy.mtu.edu
 
This is an excellent idea, but there is one problem.  Define "subject"
in this context.  If Congress defines "jobs" as a subject, then a
pork-barrel dam project fits.  If they define "environment" as a
subject, the same dam could fit there, too.  If "budget" is the
subject, then katy-bar-the-door.
 
I am for a line-item veto that requires a simple majority on a
roll-call vote to override each separate line-item vetoed.  This allows
the President to force each pork-barrel item to stand on its own.  The
Congressman could no longer say "I objected to that item, but the rest
of the bill was too important to vote no."  If he objects to the item,
he would have to stand up and vote against it by itself.
 
Jim McMaster
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:24604 tx.politics:7984 talk.politics.misc:64320
From: davidc@montagar.com (David L. Cathey)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,tx.politics,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: The collapse of communism and the role of the U.S.
Date: 14 Dec 92 18:14:02 CDT
Distribution: tx
Organization: Montagar Software Concepts, Plano TX

In article <1992Dec10.144857.22957@mksol.dseg.ti.com>, mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
> In <1992Dec7.233404.27033@Princeton.EDU> pswanson@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Paul Swanson) writes:
>>It greatly overstrained the economic resources of both countries,
>>leaving both, by the end of the 1980's, confronted with heavy financial,
>>social and, in the case of the Russians, political problems that neither
>>had anticipated and for which neither was fully prepared.
> 
> Another misstatement.  Just what is the 'cost' supposed to have been
> to us that was so disastrous?  It is those "heavy financial, social,
> and political problems" that pushed the Soviet tightrope walker off
> the wire.

	Well, looking at a $4T debt could be disastrous.  You analogy of the
tight-rope walker in incomplete.  We also are on a tight-rope, since we do
not live in a bubble unaffected by the (un)USSR.  We just did a better job
of balancing, but are not means off the wire, yet.

	That's not to say it was not required, since the USSR did believe
that it could take over the world (presumably without firing a shot?)  However,
it would have been nicer to feed a few people instead...

> We would all be better off if the change had been more gradual and the
> Soviet Union still held sway over Eastern Europe?  I suspect a lot of
> Eastern Europeans would disagree with you on that one.

	Actually, we should have probably turned Patton loose, and avoided the
whole mess...  It would have cost much less in the long run.  But that's
hindsight.

> Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
David L. Cathey		                |INET: davidc@montagar.com
Montagar Software Concepts              |UUCP: ...!montagar!davidc
P. O. Box 260772, Plano TX  75026-0772  |Fone: (214)-618-2117
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:24649 talk.politics.misc:64806 alt.politics.libertarian:2814
From: mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Mike Polen)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Who's weakening the constitution?
Date: 11 Dec 1992 23:16:06 GMT
Organization: Mips Technologies, Inc.
Distribution: world
Reply-To: mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Mike Polen)
NNTP-Posting-Host: suntory.mti.sgi.com

Mark Wilson) writes:
|> Mike Polen) writes:
|> 
|> |Mark Wilson) writes:
|> ||> In other words, Do you feel that states should be required to place on the
|> ||> ballot anybody who so requests?
|> ||> 
|> |I thought this is what I answered.  I believe that the courts will rule that
|> |states cannot not create unequal rules for ballot access.
|> 
|> But don't other forms of ballot access rules also create inequalities.  That
|> is some people are able to meet them and some aren't.
|> 
Such as?
-- 
These opinions are usually my own, sometimes my dog's,
occasionaly my (grown) children's, never my employer's.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.president.clinton
From: erics@sco.COM (eric smith)
Subject: Re: voting for the enemy.
Organization: The Santa Cruz Operation, Inc.
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 20:39:24 GMT


green@plains.NoDak.edu (Brad Green) writes:

>The Clinton folks have no qualms
>about playing fast and loose with the truth, or what they believe.  We
>heard over and over about the "Worst economy since the depression" when it
>wasn't.  We hear a great code of ethics for appointees, and half his 
>appointees fail the test.  

>As I said, this isn't really "dirty politics", just a total lack of ethics -
>I'll do anything to get elected mentality.

Gee, this is funny, since it was George Bush who actually made the
statement "I will do whatever it takes to win the election", which
turned out to be yet another thing that he either lied about or just
got plain wrong.

Now, every political campaign attacks what is perceived as the opponent's
weak points, and each uses a bit of hyperbole. Let's contrast the above
statement on the economy with a statement made by George Bush - "If these
guys are elected we'll be up to our necks in owls and no jobs for
anybody". Do you want to explain how much sense *that* statement makes?

I have been following presidential politics since 1960 and voting since
1972, and I have never seen campaigns with less ethics than the Bush
campaigns of 1988 and 1992. While Clinton may have been guilty of some
exaggeration, at least he attempted to have a dialog on real issues,
as did Dukakis. Bush's campaign attempted to throw up every smokescreen
and political hand-waiving they could think of to obscure what was 
actually happening in the country. The tactic worked in 1988, before
Bush had a record in office, so they tried it again in 1992. But after
the public saw Bush as president, nothing could save him.

-----
Eric Smith         | Joel:  "What do you guys want for Christmas?"
erics@sco.com      | Gypsy: "I want a pony!"
erics@infoserv.com | Crow:  "I want to have the power over who lives
CI$: 70262,3610	   |         and who dies."

Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:24605 talk.politics.misc:64327 alt.politics.libertarian:2644
From: wchen@beirut.berkeley.edu (William Chen)
Subject: Re: Argument for broadening the veto power (Re: Who's weakening the constitution?)
Organization: U.C. Berkeley Math. Department.
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 21:44:40 GMT

Since more than a couple of people were unsure whether or not my post was
meant in seriousness, I ask you to reread the two paragraphs advocating
allowing the President to strike the word "not" from a bill barring 
a 2/3 majority override.  I didn't think anyone could actually take me 
seriously.  

Since the points I tried to raise in the article did not seem to get made,
let me try a more direct approach.   First, sure there are congressional 
abuses nowadays,  but how will this change in a line item veto?  Heck 
Congress could just call the whole bill a line item.  Not that much 
harder to put in two totally unrelated thngs in one line item, unless
there exist rules about what a line item can consist of, etc...   When 
we start doing this, I claim that the President is meddling in the 
lawmaking process more than his Constitutional Power warrants. 
Also, who gets to decide what's related and what's unrelated in a
bill?  Congress itself?  The President???  The Supreme Court???? 
"Not!"   Also we have the problem of the President abusing his 
power and killing off legitimate compromise bills.   The example 
of the governor of Pennsylvania striking down the republican measures
and signing the democratic ones into law seems a bit underhanded.  
Also what prevents the President from signing a law and striking 
down exceptions that were key to the passage of a law?   Who is 
going to separate the pork from the more legitimate expenditures?

Frankly the process we have now sems preferable to any ob the above 
alternatives.  If the President doesn't like some items in a bill,
he can already strike out the undesired measures and ask Congress
to reconsider the bill with his changes (Heck he can even tack on 
additional proposals and do this).  And if a majority approves of the
changes, it will pass.  If a majority does not approve of the changes,
it should not become law!  Frankly I think the line item veto and 
balanced budget adments proposed were mostly political smokescreens
to lessen the share of the President's blame for the deficit.  If the 
President really wants a balanced budget he can submit one, or 
at least submit one with a greatly reduced deficit.  This would have 
contrasted with Congess' proposed spending spree to be paid for 
by your working children.  The President could also have marked all the 
proposed "pork" in an appropriations bill and sent it back and showed 
the American people what a great reduction in the deficit it would make.  


Remeber if the majority of Congress dos not approve of a bill, it should 
not become law!

William
 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.libertarian
From: cescript@mtu.edu (Charles Scripter)
Subject: Re: Who's weakening the constitution?
Organization: Michigan Technological University
Distribution: usa
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 23:59:18 GMT

In article <1992Dec13.070641.9436@anasazi.com> karl@anasazi.com
(Karl Dussik) writes:

>So do you contend that the practice of bundling hundreds (thousands?) of
>separate spending items togther, calling it a "bill," and submitting it to
>the President with a "take it or leave it" attitude IS consistent with
>original intent? 

We could push for a Constitutional Amendment prohibiting this "bundling".
Then the President wouldn't "need" a line item veto...  [BTW, I believe
Michigan has such a clause in their Consititution, restricting a bill to
one subject]

-- 
Charles Scripter   *   cescript@phy.mtu.edu
Dept of Physics, Michigan Technological University, Houghton, MI 49931
-------------------------------------------------------------------
With your one remaining eye, please do NOT look back into the laser
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,tx.politics
From: MCMASTER@LSTC2VM.stortek.com (Jim McMaster)
Subject: Re: Who's weakening the constitution?
Organization: StorageTek SW Engineering
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 16:48:31 GMT

In article <1992Dec11.225632.20901@oakhill.sps.mot.com> on
Fri, 11 Dec 1992 22:56:32 GMT you write:
 
>In article <168B5B856.MCMASTER@LSTC2VM.stortek.com> MCMASTER@LSTC2VM.stortek.com (Jim McMaster) writes:
>>In article <ByL0DL.10zB@austin.ibm.com>
>>curt@ekhadafi.austin.ibm.com (Curt Finch 903 2F021 curt@aixwiz.austin.ibm.com 512-838-2806) writes:
>>>
>>>Push for term limits if you want to re-level the branches.
>>>Push for the line item veto as well.
>>>--
>>>curt@aixwiz.austin.ibm.com (Curt L. Finch) | AIX NFS/NIS Field Quality
>>
>>If the original intent of the founding fathers was for either of these
>>two to have been in the Constitution, they could very easily have
>>included them when they drafted it.
>
>If the original intent of the founding fathers was to abolish slavery
>and let women vote, they could have written THAT in when they drafted
>it. Guess they weren't infallible, eh?
>
I never said they were infallible, and neither did they.  That is why
they included a process for amending the Constitution as required.  The
Constitution did not require slavery, it merely forbade Congress from
outlawing the slave trade for a certain number of years, and stated
that slaves would be partially counted in the census.  These were
compromises required to gain ratification by slave states.
 
Women were not given the right to vote, and it took an amendment to
change that.
 
>The country needs term limits, a balanced budget, and a line-item veto.
>All three will *restore* the Government closer to the *true* original
>Constitutional intent, by the founding fathers, of limited Government
>and a Congress of citizens.
>
It is merely your opinion that these things are closer to the original
intent, since I doubt your ability to read the minds of dead people.
As I said, if the intent of the founding fathers was to have these
things, they could have been included in the original document you
claim to revere so much.  In order to include them now, and we disagree
on the desirability of all three, you need to amend the Constitution.
 
>Pat
 
Jim McMaster
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:24628 talk.politics.misc:64481 alt.politics.libertarian:2700
Organization: The Leader Desslok School of Diplomacy
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 03:24:08 EST
From: Mark 'Mark' Sachs <MBS110@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: Argument for broadening the veto power (Re: Who's weakening the co
 <1992Dec13.070641.9436@anasazi.com> <1992Dec13.204633.10760@henson.cc.wwu.edu>
 <1992Dec15.091356.3890@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU>
 <168BE13232.PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu>

I can provide a real-life example of use of the line-item veto from here
in Pennsylvania. Here, the Governor is a Democrat, Bill "Governor Dimbulb"
Casey; the State House and Senate, however, are controlled by Republicans
but with a large Democratic minority. IE, the Republicans cannot override
a veto by sheer numbers, since they don't have the two-thirds majority.

So anyway, the Reps and Dems were engaged in their usual knife-fight over
the state's budget. Finally, the Dems agreed to compromise on a budget with
funding for both the Democrats' and the Republicans' favorite programs.
The vote was duly taken, the budget passed, and it went to the Governor's desk.

Casey proceeded to take his veto pen and line out all the Republicans'
programs, leaving the Democrats' ones intact: the resulting budget looked
just like the one the Democrats wanted in the first place.

The Democrats in the State House were elated, of course, and the Republicans
were furious. They threatened legal action to stop the new budget, but I
have heard nothing about them being successful in stopping it.

Conclusion? Well, I have to admit it was a clever move, but on the other
hand it was really sneaky and nasty and underhanded and I hate that sort
of thing. Under a President who was sufficiently malevolent, an unrestricted
line-item veto could be abused in any number of ways, which is why I'm against
it.

The weak line-item veto that Clinton favors might avoid these pitfalls (it
only requires a majority to override, not two-thirds, so in the PA example
the Republicans could have beat back Casey's line item vetoes) and it may
be worth a try, but I'm still a bit leery for some reason.

"Thank you, Dr. Science."

[Your blood pressure just went up.]        Mark Sachs IS: mbs110@psuvm.psu.edu
DISCLAIMER: If PSU knew I had opinions they'd probably try to charge me for it.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,tx.politics