From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Clinton's Economic Plan
Date: 26 Aug 92 16:35:22 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Texas Instruments Inc

In <21409@rpp386.lonestar.org> jfh@rpp386.lonestar.org (John F. Haugh II) writes:

>In article <1992Aug25.145253.5116@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>>As a hint on the first suggestion, you will note whose signature is
>>required on the budget bills.

>No ones signature is required on budget bills.  The Constitution allows
>for the President to veto any (and all) legislation that he or she sees
>fit to veto.  That the President does not veto a bill does not indicate
>that he or she wholeheartedly supports it either.  

Yeah, right.  What a cop out.  "Well, I wasn't in favor of this.  I
could have vetoed it but didn't want to, but I'm not repsonsible even
though I could have vetoed it and made them override that veto to get
it through."  Yeah, right.

>Rather, it may simply
>mean that the President doesn't care to veto the bill, which is why the
>Line Item Veto - a priviledge now enjoyed in 43 states - is so important
>for the President to have.  Despite the objections of Congress ...

If the President "doesn't care to veto the bill", the President has
acquiesced to what is in that Bill.  In other words, it's as much his
fault as the guys who sent it to him, because he could have tried to
stop it and didn't.  Accessory before the fact.

>But quite simply put, the Constitution does not require that the
>President sign, or not sign, any piece of legislation.

Simply put, he only has to sign it if he wants to endorse it.
Otherwise, he either lets it become law without signature or vetos it
(see, he has to approve at least by acquiesence).

>>Things have changed a bit in the past 200 years, John.  Perhaps you
>>should catch up?

>Perhaps you wouldn't mind pointing me at the amendments that I need
>to read.  I wasn't aware that Article I was amended to force the
>President to submit a budget or that the President was forced to sign
>the budget if and only if he or she agreed with it.

I wasn't aware that the Constitution was the ONLY law in this country.
When did THAT happen?

>Since I =do= have a copy of the Constitution, certainly you won't
>be forced to resorting to the tired, old "I saw it on TeeVee" excuse
>you usually dredge up.  

Well, actually, you COULD see it on TV if you watched something
educational.  However, it's obvious that you never do that, becuase it
would be impossible to maintain that straight-jacketed thinking you
use in the face of any real information.  That's why you read all
those things that agree with what you want to think.

>I'd even be happy to send you a copy so you
>can read it yourself ...

Already got one.  You might want to check yours, though.  There's at
least one online version floating around in which one of the
Amendments (the 9th, I think) is not correct.

Show me where in the Constitution it says that the Constitution is the
ONLY law and that no others can apply or add additional requirements,
if you would.  This kind of argument is quite typical of your line of
reasoning, though -- point to something and say "see", while ignoring
everything else.


-- 
"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: tx.politics,alt.politics.clinton