Here’s a little snid-bit of something that I picked up on back in January and couldn’t really figure out why the media was not covering this as an important issue of our day.
Today President Bush resurrected his call in January during his State of the Union Address to pass a law allowing the president line-item veto power.
On the surface I think I’m opposed to anything that allows this president to have more power. Bush has certainly pushed the limits of all implied powers relating to war and security that can possibly be present in the Constitution. Now the call for more power relating to direct un-Constitutional power of a line-item veto does resound a sudden pause for me.
I’m not against line-item vetos at all. I think at the state level, where matters of national security rarely exist and more to do with fiscal policy, a line-item is necessary. That’s why Bush is correct when he says that 43 states already have such laws. And fiscal policy is exactly why Bush wants to have this line-item veto, or so he says. He wants the power to curb the out of control spending by the Republicans. Or better known as the $439 billion deficit the Republicans in charge of this country have provided. Whatever one may say about fiscal conservancy and party politics, the one thing that is certain is that Republicans are only in favor of fiscal responsibility unless they are the ones doing the spending.
Bush does not need line-item veto power to curb Republican fiscal mismanagement. He’s the head of their party-- a party that controls all three branches of government. Besides, Congress is granted power of the purse, not Bush; or are we actually going to follow the Constitution and realize that the word “Bush” does not take place of the word “president” in the Constitution.
Another quick thought that jumps out at me about the line-item is the complete short-sightedness of this administration and Republicans in general. Do they really think Bush is going to be president forever? Whatever Bush does as president sets precedent for whoever comes after him. Eventually there will be a Democratic president again. And so far whoever that Democratic president will be, they will have the inherent power to preemptive invasion, spying on American citizens without a Constitutionally mandated warrant, unilaterally withdraw from treaties Constitutionally ratified by the senate, hold less than 40 press conferences in 5 years and take over one-and-a-half years of vacation in just five years of work time.
Like I said, I’m not against line-item veto power, but I don’t think it’s a power the president should have, whoever that may be. The Founding Fathers gave the president total veto power and not nit-pick veto power. The presidency has absolutely no power to render legislation and such power can only be granted through a Constitutional Amendment, not by Congress; which is why the Supreme Court already struck down the 1996 line-item veto legislation then passed by Congress.
If there are those who consider themselves to be Republican and think that Bush should have this power then let me ask you this: Do you think Hillary Clinton should have line-item veto power?
Tags:Bush, Line-item Veto, Hillary, Bush Proposes Law Permitting Line-Item Veto
15 comments:
This post really isn't about the line-item veto. It's about how much you think President Bush has abused the power he already has. I don't believe that the Constitution is a living document that has a changeable interpretation based on what the mores of modern society happen to be at the time. However, I don't think the Founders of this country had as much to worry about in the area of national security. They didn't have to worry about terrorists and radical nutcases quite as much. For this reason, I don't consider the Constitution the final word in areas like that.
It's a little late for the president to be concerned about spending. He has had quite enough time to do something about that. We agree there. The Republicans are not going to be able to point to fiscal responsibility as one of their strong points, that's for sure.
So what exactly do you want Bush to say to Congress that they would actually listen to? You're right that Congress is in charge of the spending, and of course Bush could have vetoed some (or any) of the spending bills he didn't like. However, there is also no reason for Congress to discipline itself with the rules we have now and restrict pork on their own initiative. Am I correct in assuming that you think that Bush has abused the office he holds by testing the limits of existing laws on wiretapping? It sure sounds like you believe that.
As far as the pre-emptive invasion is concerned, both Republicans and Democrats signed off on the war in Iraq. Some conveniently want to forget that vote, but it's in the record. Both sides believed that Saddam was a threat. On the NSA thing, no single citizen of this country has had their civil rights or privacy violated, (at least not that I'm aware of) and unless that becomes the case, I'm ok with Bush wiretapping possible terrorists or anyone helping terrorists. I'm not sure that I am qualified to comment on treaties,etc, so I'll leave that one alone. If you want to argue that Bush avoids accountability, that's legitimate. As far as the vacation is concerned, I think that you are being a bit petty with that criticism. :)
Explain to me how having the line-item veto will make a president more dangerous than he/she would be right now. I just don't see the problem with it if it is re-structured to be in line with the parameters that the Constitution allows.
And yes...Hillary (should she amaze all of us and become President)should have a line-item veto. Why the heck not? I would, however, want to make absolutely sure safeguards were in place if she decided to wiretap anybody. :P (In case you were wondering about this, I would also support similar measures even under current and future Republican administrations.)
Don't you think you are being a tad bit more partisan than usual with this post??? :)
Of course I'm a bit more partisan with this post :) I gotta be allowed to get a couple of these out every now and then. Though, it's no secret that I am a Democrat and do not support George Bush.
I do disagree with you about the Constitution not being a living document. But for the sake of debate, no matter my view or your view on the Constitution, it is the supreme law of the land, and it has to be followed. The line-item veto has already been ruled un-Constitutional by the Supreme Court.
I also have to disagree that our Founding Fathers did not have much to worry about in terms of national security. In 1787, the year the Constitution was ratified, the entire country was surrounded by enemy troops. Maine had not yet been admitted as a state and British soldiers were amassed near the border and all throughout Canada. The British Navy still hounded our every presence on the seas and pirated our shipping routes for decades after 1787. By 1812 we were already at war again with the British and numerous times the very document of the Constitution had to be secretly transported out of American cities in order to escape British occupation. In 1814, the American capital was invaded, occupied and burned to the ground by the British. National security for the infant nation was the number one concern of those writing the Constitution. And yes, they had their fair share of radical nutcases as well.
Bush could do a number of things to control the spending bills passed by the Republican Congress. For one, he could put pressure on Republican leadership. Two, he could actually veto a bill. Three, he could propose more fiscally responsible budgets that don't allow for the massive pork projects Republicans love. There's lots he could do. He hasn't veto'd a single spending bill, so he obviously must agree with and support the fiscal mismanagment of this country. His hands aren't tied. Clinton did it without a line-item.
Yes, you are correct to assume that I believe that Bush has abused his power as president.
You are correct also about the vote to authorize military force against Iraq (Public law 107-243, 116 Stat. 1497-1502). But just the other day you were arguing that you thought Democrats weren't serious about defending America. Nevertheless, preemptive invasion will be an inherited power to every president after Bush.
On the wiretapping, I'm not sure you can say that "no single citizen of this country has had their civil rights or privacy violated." During his testimony to the senate select committe, Attorney General Gonzales could not testify that to be the case.
"BIDEN: Can you assure us, General, you are fully, totally informed and confident that you know the absolute detail with which this program is being conducted? Can you assure us you personally can assure us no one is being eavesdropped upon in the United States other than — other than someone who has a communication that is emanating from foreign soil by a suspected terrorist, al Qaeda, or otherwise?
GONZALES: Sir, I can’t give you absolute assurance."
I think the vacation is plenty relevant to today's issues. How can someone take over 1.5 years of vacation time in 5 years work time? What is this France? I think his vacationing goes hand-in-hand with his incompetence.
"Explain to me how having the line-item veto will make a president more dangerous than he/she would be right now. I just don't see the problem with it if it is re-structured to be in line with the parameters that the Constitution allows."
Well, it's just like you said, there are no parameters in the Constitution for a line-item veto. The only way a president can have such powers is from a Constitutional Amendment. And I didn't say "more dangerous." I use it as a term of power, and I for one do not think Bush needs any more power.
I'm glad you mention Hillary and the safeguards you would want in place in case her or another Republican wants to spy on American citizens because those safeguards are already in place, it's called the Constitution. To circumvent the requirements of the 4th Amendment and warrants, we have FISA, which allows for warrants in matters of national security. I'm glad you agree that president's should follow the law.
Thanks for reading Lisa, it's always fun ;)
I admire how polite you are, MJ. I could not have answered that comment as politely. "I don't think the Founders of this country had as much to worry about in the area of national security."
Wow.
aaaahhh DBK, I don't take it personal. Lisa's a great girl and maybe somtimes she gets ahead of herself, but so do I. Thanks for reading and thanks for the compliment.
P. S., About national security during the time of 1787-- not to mention the fact that France was the only country who recognized American independence and that the Continental Army had been disbanded and the Articles of Confederation did not give the federal government the power to levy taxes, which resulted in the inability to raise an army and/or navy. National security was in a dire situation with the enemy just miles off our shore. Today, and I agree the terrorist threat is very serious, but the threat was much greater then than now.
I seem to lack the patience for gentle answers lately. I don't doubt that Lisa is a great girl, or woman, or guy with a feminine name. Don't know her personally so I won't presume.
The point is really not the Founding Fathers anyway. Every president has made efforts to destroy civil liberties during times of danger, from Lincoln onwards, but never has the Constitution been more in danger, never have our freedoms been more infringed upon, and never has an administration had so little regard for our own freedoms. In addition, the infringements have proven to be completely pointless in terms of foreign enemies. The government hasn't caught any through these infringements, but they have made the rest of us less secure.
Maybe the point is the Founding Fathers after all, though I hadn't planned on given such a simple history lesson. The entire point of the Constitution, the reason it was such an experiment, was that it was developed to define clearly and limit severely the powers of the government by men who understood something that is as clearly true today as it was then: any nation will rally to repel a foreign invader, but the government presents the greatest threat to the people's freedoms. If you don't believe that, you should review the events in Tianneman.
Nice addition indeed DBK.
Bush could start to usher in the era of fiscal responsibility be penning a veto toward ONE FUCKING SPENDING BILL perhaps, but hey that's just me.
You write a partisan post like that, how else do you expect me to respond to it? Let me give this my best shot, but I think at the end of the day we will have to agree to disagree on most of this.
If following the supreme law of the land to the letter means that we cannot catch and apprehend terrorists who want to destroy and blow things up in our country, then in that case, we need to find another way to authorize the surveillance necessary to deal with the terrorists. If breaking the law means that we keep terrorists from causing havoc, I can't argue too much against that. But if we need to make new laws so that we can wiretap terrorists, fine. Let's do it.
I withdraw the statement about the Founding Fathers, even though the terrorists we face today are not the same kind of threat that our nation faced in the past. I also don't remember the radical nutcases...but I'm sure you have examples of this. :P
Bush can pressure the Republican leadership. Right. Because after all, they are listening to everything else he says...why not spending bills? The vetos I already mentioned and AGREED with you about, in case you hadn't noticed. I have never excused Bush on spending. You know that. I'm just not convinced that Congress will restrict spending merely because the President sends them a fiscally responsible bill. Look what happened to Coburn when he tried to cut earmarks and pork. His attempt was brutally shot down. Should Bush try to send fiscally responsible bills to Congress? Without a doubt. Will that work? I'm pessimistic about that.
I'm still not clear about why you are opposed to the line-item veto, other than the fact that in its present form, it's unconstitutional. What hypothetical situation scares you about giving a president this power?
I haven't changed my mind about the Democrats and national security. My point was that the president did ask Congress for authorization, and they gave it to him. Whether they should have done that or not is something reasonable people can debate all day long (and have), but at the end of the day, this wasn't something Bush decided all by himself.
Just because Gonzales couldn't say definitively that no citizen's civil rights were violated, that doesn't mean that civil rights abuses happened. If there were abuses, then there's legal channels to deal with that, and I'm sure the ACLU will provide any support necessary to such lawsuits.
So, this president that you think has screwed up pretty much everything he has touched in Washington and has ruined most foreign and domestic policies he's authored...you want him to spend MORE time in D.C. making laws you disagree with? :P Interesting position there.
From Wikipedia:
"In In re Sealed Case, 310 F.3d 717, 742 (Foreign Intel. Surv. Ct. of Rev. 2002) the special court stated “[A]ll the other courts to have decided the issue [have] held that the President did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information . . . . We take for granted that the President does have that authority and, assuming that is so, FISA could not encroach on the President’s constitutional power.”
That Constitution you consider the final authority on everything allows the president to do warrantless wiretaps. It's been done in the past, under former presidents, and both Clinton and Bush had the authority to do those wiretaps.
DBK...I am in favor of limiting government power, although you wouldn't have guessed that from my previous comments. I just think we need to apply a different standard when the issue is national security. I would sure like to know whether any of the measures we have taken already have caught any bad guys or preventing any attacks. If civil rights were violated by our government, then I am absolutely opposed to government being allowed to do that. I simply haven't seen any evidence of it, only hypothetical what-ifs.
that is...preventED any attacks. :)
Lisa, it’s okay. You can respond anyway you like to any of my posts. It’s understandable that not everyone who reads will agree with me. It’s no fun when people agree all the time :)
I don’t think anyone is saying that the Constitution doesn’t allow for the American government to effectively track down terrorists. In fact, the FISA court was setup to circumvent the 4th Amendment allowing national security matters to effectively operate within the law and regulations of this country. If we need better, stronger laws in order to do that, then I agree with you and we need to do it. But we can’t simply say, “oh they’re a terrorist no laws apply to them.” In order to do that we will need to define the term terrorist, and that is something no American government will do.
Of course the terrorist threat we face today isn’t the same kind as threats we have faced in the past. But it is inaccurate to say that the Founding Fathers did not face national security threats while drafting the Constitution. The threats were very different, but both very real. That is all I was meaning in my first reply to you.
If Bush can’t get his own party to listen and trust him, then why should the American people? I think you would be amazed what a little pressure from the president on his own party can do. If Bush doesn’t like the spending bills that are sent to him, he can veto them. I’m sure that would send a definite signal to the Republicans that they better start becoming fiscally responsible. If you are pessimistic about the Republican Congress operating effective and sound government then I’m assuming that is a personal decision on your part. But in all honesty, I don’t make the distinction between Bush and the Republican Congress. To blame all fiscal woes on the Congress isn’t accurate either. By Bush not vetoing a single bill only demonstrates to me that he obviously is in agreement with the Republican Congress.
If a law granting the president a certain power is un-Constitutional, and already been ruled that way by the Supreme Court, isn’t that reason enough to oppose it? Must there be other reasons to disagree? A hypothetical situation would easily be the president exercising a power granted to him by Congress that is clearly un-Constitutional.
I think you are confusing preemptive invasion with acting alone. Preemptive invasion does not mean that the president, on a whim, invaded a country without proper authorization from Congress. It means that the president invaded a country without being attacked first. Yes the Congress granted him the power to invade, but precisely granted him the power to invade preemptively. Moreover, I don’t think the Congress would have granted the power had accurate intelligence been used. Had Bush went to Congress and said, “well, Iraq doesn’t have any weapons, but we need to invade anyway” I don’t think the measure would have left committee, but that's not what he did. If you want to argue that the Congress is as much to blame for the invasion of Iraq as Bush is, then I totally agree. Congress has oversight power, and it has been used very little with this president. And the invasion of Iraq is a perfect example of the failures of Congressional oversight.
By Gonzales not being able to confirm that no American citizen has had their civil rights violated by Bush’s warrantless spying program only proves to me the seriousness and the need for there to be yet another Congressional oversight committee reviewing Bush’s program, which was voted down yesterday by the Republicans. And also coincidently disproves the very point I think you are trying to make with the Sealed Case ruling.
Sealed Case specifically states, and thank you for the link, the president may conduct “warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information.” The keyword is foreign. The president has the power to spy on foreign powers not American citizens, which is the whole basis of my argument. And by the Attorney General not being able to assure the American people that the federal government is not spying on its own citizens is reason enough to investigate the program that Bush says is legal but yet can’t make any guarantees.
I would be interested in the evidence that past president's have done the same thing, though.
As far as the vacationing president is concerned, if you agree that it’s okay for the president to take over a year and a half of vacation time then that’s up to you. I for one would much rather have him in Washington doing his job because like I said earlier, his actions only sets precedent for future presidents. I personally don’t think the president, any president, needs that much vacation time. Never mind the policy that they may set forth while they are working which I might not agree with. He’s setting policy by taking vacations and I don’t’ agree with that at all.
Thanks for reading and thanks for checking back. I hope none of this sounds harsh, because I do not intend for any of it to be. You always garner very good discussion, and I'm happy I opened this post up to comments. Thanks again.
Your patience amazes me. I can only agree with you on this mj so just carry on.
My fear is he will soon have the power to do anything he wants regardless of his poor poll ratings. The madman in a nation of mad men I fear.
Glad you are back posting mj.
Well...if John Kerry supports this, than it MUST be acceptable. :P Something about a broken clock being right twice a day. Anyway, I see you're not allowing comments on this new post. So I will comment on that post here. It's nice to know that you can be persuaded by a good argument, even if it isn't mine. :) You're right that the Republicans may not put the brakes on their free-spending ways...but why not attempt to stop them?
As far as the concern about Democratic endorsements of this idea for the President-- I think he's way past caring what anybody thinks of his policies, unfortunately for his own party.
Comments should be working on the new post. Thanks for checking back lisa.
Hey cowgirl, thanks for the visit. Sorry if I came close to blowing your cover. I've heard of Clinton County, however. It's almost in Southern Illinois :)
SIU is a good time. I've spent many a nights there and hold a couple degrees from that place.
Come back anytime.
businessman, thank you.
Post a Comment