Originally Posted by JJsPokerCom

I'm a Bush guy too (haha, that just sounds funny) but he DID have a say. Unless I'm mistaken, the president has had an authority called line item veto (vetoing just part of a bill) for a decade or so now.

So yeah, it was snuck in, and that pisses me off, but Bush could have vetoed just that part of the bill. Line item veto was supposed to get rid of this kind of thing, but I guess not.

Line item veto rights were voted upon this last year and put down. I am pretty sure the Pres doesnt yet have that right.

Originally Posted by JJsPokerCom

Wow, very informative - thank you. I did look it up, and I was half right, because they did enact this ten years ago, but it was killed by the supreme court right away.

So it's failed again? That's too bad. I can't see a good reason NOT to have it, and I think the online gambling sneak has proved that.

I know. I really cant figure out why anyone would not want it passed? Doesnt make sense to me.

Originally Posted by KRE8R

I know. I really cant figure out why anyone would not want it passed? Doesnt make sense to me.

I assume you mean line item vetoes?

It is because there is a strong constitutional argument that it vests too much power in the Executive branch, while removing much of the Legislative's power. Were such a law encacted, this would def be held up int he courts.

I have to agree in not granting line item veto power, it is pretty much always a mistake to invest too much power in a single individual and/or branch of government.

Originally Posted by wastrel

I assume you mean line item vetoes?

It is because there is a strong constitutional argument that it vests too much power in the Executive branch, while removing much of the Legislative's power. Were such a law encacted, this would def be held up int he courts.

I have to agree in not granting line item veto power, it is pretty much always a mistake to invest too much power in a single individual and/or branch of government.

I understand that, but at the same time we end up with equally shady problems like the recent gambling issue that was tacked on to something it had nothing to do with.

Originally Posted by KRE8R

I understand that, but at the same time we end up with equally shady problems like the recent gambling issue that was tacked on to something it had nothing to do with.

Maybe. There's no guarantee Bush would've vetoed that item if he did have the power. I actually think it's unlikely he would have. Most politicians outside of Nevada do not get votes catering to the gambling constituent.