There has been some news lately about the "reform" of earmarks in the Federal budget. Personally I feel to a degree, these earmarks are at times a good thing. Some worthy projects might not ordinarily get funded otherwise.
As for earmarked projects, that may not necessarily be so worthy, there is a solution for that too. A Constitutional Amendment giving the President the power of the Line Item Veto.
Thoughts anyone...
Posts: 2277 | Location: Martinsville, IL | Registered: 06-03-02
The Line Item Veto would give a president too much power over what gets money. We are currently seeing the effects of allowing a president too much authority above what the Constitution gives him. I was against it when Clinton briefly had it, before someone bothered to read the Constitution and see that it was obviously unconstitutional, and I'm against it now.
The solution to the problem of earmarks is for Congress to
a) exercise common sense
and
b) allow bills to have only attachments that are related to the bill itself.
Pork is costing our children billions, trillions of dollars. Wouldn't some restraint be in order?
Posts: 17514 | Location: Lincoln Place, Granite City, IL, USA | Registered: 06-03-02
Sad to say, but the only real solution is for the voters to pay attention to what their legislators are up too. I say this, coming from Alaska, the home of the biggest offenders.
Dwight
Posts: 4346 | Location: Anchorage, AK | Registered: 06-05-02
Originally posted by DorianGreyed: The Line Item Veto would give a president too much power over what gets money. We are currently seeing the effects of allowing a president too much authority above what the Constitution gives him. I was against it when Clinton briefly had it, before someone bothered to read the Constitution and see that it was obviously unconstitutional, and I'm against it now.
The solution to the problem of earmarks is for Congress to
a) exercise common sense
and
b) allow bills to have only attachments that are related to the bill itself.
Pork is costing our children billions, trillions of dollars. Wouldn't some restraint be in order?
The Line Item Veto is an idea that has already more than proven itself. Governors in several states have this power. It is time this tool is given to our President. And since the Supreme Court ruled it unconstitutional, the an Amendment should be added to provide this power to the President, and to spell out the power associated with it. This is the real common sense way of slashing pork barrel projects out of the budget.
Posts: 2277 | Location: Martinsville, IL | Registered: 06-03-02
The Line Item Veto is an idea that has already more than proven itself. Governors in several states have this power. It is time this tool is given to our President. And since the Supreme Court ruled it unconstitutional, the an Amendment should be added to provide this power to the President, and to spell out the power associated with it. This is the real common sense way of slashing pork barrel projects out of the budget.
LR, that looks like common sense (viewed from over here) so it must have little chance of being introduced. It goes against tradition, for one thing, let alone any constitutional ruling. We all know how sacred is the logic that because our ancestors did it it must be right
Incidentally, it has long been a constitutional rule in Britain that no Bill is to contain any provision which is not inherently and immediately relevant to the principal purpose of that Bill. Naturally, I can't point to the direct authority for this (it's common sense and there was no tradition and we have no written constitution 'set in stone' to argue about), but it was best illustrated by, if not originating in, the case of a town hall clerk who craftily added a clause to a bill, concerning something mundane like sewerage and water provision in his town, to say that he himself was 'hereby granted a divorce' Unfortunately somebody spotted this inclusion and he did not get his divorce in the end .It did, however, give the rule a name. Such a clause is called a 'town clerk's clause'.
"Incidentally, it has long been a constitutional rule in Britain that no Bill is to contain any provision which is not inherently and immediately relevant to the principal purpose of that Bill."
See section b in my first post. One quick addition to the rules of both the House and the Senate would stop all the pork from slipping in. A bill should either pass or fail to pass on its own merits.
Posts: 17514 | Location: Lincoln Place, Granite City, IL, USA | Registered: 06-03-02
See section b in my first post. One quick addition to the rules of both the House and the Senate would stop all the pork from slipping in. A bill should either pass or fail to pass on its own merits.
I may have misunderstood: I thought, from posts above, that a simple change to the rules would not be enough, because it had been ruled that the Constitution prevented such excisions.
We were astonished here when a Bill in the US concerning, I think, regulation of ports and other such mercantile matters relating thereto, was used as a vehicle for passing a law effectively banning internet gaming, those clauses being tacked on to it at the last minute.That had absolutely nothing to do with the Bill as described and presented. (Our bookmakers were most upset at what seemed an underhand practice )
Apart from any other considerations, any lawmaker here, and the public, would be entitled to assume that a bill headed and described as , say, " A Bill for the Regulation of the Import of Groundnuts" did not contain clauses creating criminal offences for bookmakers or the control of car manufacture. Any MP might be forgiven for not picking up a late addition of that nature, presented in some half-empty House, yet, unlike groundnuts, it might be of relevance to his constituents, nor would he expect to remain through debates about the bill. We have enough trouble with bills, and regulations which could be made under them, as it is. MPs and the public have to be alive to all manner of possibilities, some remote and some not,potentially consequent on bills which are entirely within the description.
Fred, as I recall (and let me stress that, contrary to popular opinion, I was not around when it was written), what the Constitution says is that the president, upon receiving a bill, may either sign it into law, veto it, or ignore it. (Ignoring it is called a "pocket veto.") In other words, he must accept it in toto or not at all. The writing of the bill was not the reason the line item veto was ruled unconstitutional; the act of vetoing just a portion of it was the cause of the ruling.
Posts: 17514 | Location: Lincoln Place, Granite City, IL, USA | Registered: 06-03-02
'veto'. What a daft idea. One man defying the many has no place in a modern democracy.
Fair enough. However if the congress can muster a 2/3 majority they can still over-ride the presidential veto and the bill can become law - so long as it is not later declared unconstitutional. Don't you people make any provision for the rare occasion when the minority deserve to prevail??
Further to that: Here's a personal experience of how our rule works in practice. Clubs and societies were discriminating against women.Some clubs admitted women, either as guests or as members, but did not afford them the same rights or privileges as men e.g refusing access to one of the dining rooms or some bars, giving only 'associate membership' to women,refusing women the use of the club's golf course at weekends etc.
I was asked to draft a bill. A new licensing bill for pubs, clubs and restaurants was already proceeding. I could not add the terms of my new club bill to that bill, because of the 'town clerk's clause rule': it was not inherently and immediately to the purpose of a licensing bill about sale of alcohol.However, of course, nearly every club sells alcohol. Such sales are a major source of income and a teetotal club is practically unknown. So I redrafted it to fit and had it added to the licensing bill . It was now to be a condition of any club holding or applying for a licence to supply alcohol that it did not have any rule or practice that discriminated against women and any club so offending was to lose its licence forthwith.
That version was permitted to be included in the licensing bill, since it fell within the overall purpose of the law regulating the conduct of licensed premises
I have to say that this met with such a fuss from annoyed reactionaries,who did their best to delay it (and a subsequent bill having the full provisions about clubs) that the government decided to abstract it from that bill but make it a priority to pass a new Discrimination Act, which simply consolidated all previous such acts, unchanged, but included these provisions, but 'worse', since they now made no reference to licensing. That bill passed into law in almost the very next session . Both sides of the House supported that new, composite, bill and it rushed through(Na Na, Ne Na Na! to the fogeys )
'veto'. What a daft idea. One man defying the many has no place in a modern democracy.
Don't you people make any provision for the rare occasion when the minority deserve to prevail??
No.Who decides when a minority 'deserves' to prevail? If they can't persuade the majority, or enough of it to make them a majority instead,there's no democracy. And your 'minority' is a minority of one who is only to be refused by a great majority changing its mind Do you know, I thought you had a revolution to get rid of a king, not give yourselves a new one with all the power of veto last exercised, and only once, by Queen Anne some 70 years before the revolution
Who deserves to prevail. Fred? I do, and if I can persuade any district court or higher to decide that my constitutional rights are being violated, I will prevail. The tyranny of the majority can be remedied in this country, and it doesn't depend on persuading the majority even in the case of overriding a presidential veto. Only a 2/3 majority of the members of congress is required to override. Forgive me, but I think your system is arbitrary, clumsy, and antiquated, but I can understand why you might prefer it.
And as I understand it, states that gives their Governor the power of the line item veto, it does not take a 2/3 vote to overide the Governor's veto but rather a simple majority.
Posts: 2277 | Location: Martinsville, IL | Registered: 06-03-02
"And as I understand it, states that gives their Governor the power of the line item veto, it does not take a 2/3 vote to overide the Governor's veto but rather a simple majority.:
While I'm sure that Frank is talking about overriding a presidential veto, I have to ask what good your simple majority rule is in a state. Since a bill must have at least a majority of legislators for it to reach a governor's desk, requiring just a simple majority to override the governor's veto seems to be an easily-met requirement. Viewed from the standpoint of the US Constitution, requiring just a simple majority to override vetoes is eroding the presidential power.
The US Constitution is a beautiful set of rules for a government. Since the ratification of the Bill of Rights in 1791, there have been only seventeen changes made to it, and of those seventeen,
one (the 27th Amendment) was part of the original twelve amendments submitted in 1789 (It deals with Congressional pay raises.)
one (the 21st) corrected the error made by the ratification of an earlier amendment (the 18th)
three (the 13th, 14th, and 15th) concerned the civil rights of former slaves
one (the 19th) gave women the right to vote
one (the 23rd) gave citizens of Washing, D.C. the right to vote in Presidential elections
one (the 26th) extended voting rights to 18 year-olds
So eight of that 17 basically dealt with correcting errors that people today would easily see as errors. In fact, of the remaining 9, none actually deal with legislative power, nor do any of the first ten amendments. It seems that in the 220 years that the Constitution has been in effect, not one Congress (of 110 or so) has seen the need to change the Constitution with regard to legislative power. (One, the 13th, does require that the federal government pay its Civil war debts.) There is a perfectly good reason for that: The Constitution works, and it works quite well. When we elect a president, we are electing an executive manager. We are not electing an absolute monarch. The term "checks and balances" isn't about your dealings with your local financial institution. It's about the delicate balance of power in our government, a very necessary balance to ensure that no one branch can run amok. If each branch does its part, the system works very well. It is only when one branch fails to do its part that things go awry.
Edited to correct verb tense.
This message has been edited. Last edited by: DorianGreyed,
Posts: 17514 | Location: Lincoln Place, Granite City, IL, USA | Registered: 06-03-02
While I am sure that you are kidding, I will answer as if you are serious. Since WWII, most US presidents have sent US military into action without a formal declaration of war. While some may have been a case of honoring treaties, a Constitutional requirement, that does not negate the facts that
A) no war was declared and
B) only Congress can declare war.
However, bush has, on numerous occasions, called himself a "War President." To which war is he referring? He is either lying, or we are at war. If we are at war, who declared it? Congress did not declare it. Congress only gave bush the authority to use his own judgment. But that is neither declaring war not is it even clear that Congress can delegate its authority to declare war. (If someone thinks that Congress can delegate that authority, please point out that part of the Constitution to me. I can't seem to find it.) I am fully aware that bush is not alone among presidents who have exceeded their authority in such a manner, nor am I unaware of the fact that each example of ignoring a law sets a precedent. (In fact, I used exactly that to have charges against me dismissed in a hearing. The judge actually laughed when I knew more specific law concerning the charges than the prosecuting attorney.)
Then we have several cases of US citizens being held without charges being filed, without any bail hearings, and, in fact, without being about to consult an attorney, all unconstitutional acts. True believers say that this is legal because we are at war. Again, show me the required Declaration of War.
We also have the situation of so-called signing statements, i.e. a statement by a president while signing a bill that says what parts of the bill he will enforce. While many presidents have done this, and that, of course, sets precedents, what it actually means is that the president is saying that he will not be bound by that law. Whoever finds (in the Constitution) the Congressional authority to delegate declaring war needs also to find the part of the Constitution that allows a president to choose to ignore laws. Again, I can't seem to locate it.
The Senate has also failed in many cases in its duty to see that appointed government officials, over whom they have final approval, are actually competent. Frankly, the worst single incident was the appointment of Clarence Thomas to the Supreme Court. His judicial experience was mainly as a judge assigning cases. He was not at any time noted for his Constitutional knowledge, nor has he demonstrated any since his appointment. At the time of his hearing, there were several witnesses to his sexual harassment waiting to testify in a Senate chamber; they were not called. Only Anita Hill was called. Basically, the Senators who knew about these witnesses were afraid to be seen as being hard on a black man.
The current president has also nominated some people clearly unfit for the job. Brown of FEMA fame was a friend of an old college buddy: Brown's most recent non-governmental experience prior to working at FEMA was organizing horse shows. Bernard Kerik, Giuliani's buddy nominated for Secretary of Homeland Defense, was under investigation and subsequently pled guilty to two ethics violations, and was ordered to pay $221,000. Further, a grand jury issued a 16 count indictment on November 8, 2007 alleging conspiracy, mail fraud, wire fraud and lying to the IRS. If convicted on all 16 counts in the indictment, Kerik could face a maximum sentence of 142 years in prison and $4.7 million in fines.
Previous US presidents have made similar, if not as outrageously bad, nominations. But you asked for recent ones.
Posts: 17514 | Location: Lincoln Place, Granite City, IL, USA | Registered: 06-03-02
Thanks DG. I was not 'kidding' as you put it.It may surprise you that a foreigner might have a serious interest in the workings of another democracy, but sometimes we do.
Fred, I didn't think you were kidding about your interest; I thought you were kidding about not knowing. (Possibly an arrogant outlook on my part; I assumed that everyone would know about some of our system's major transgressions.)
Please don't think that the examples I gave are opinions. Each one of the facts I mentioned was public, if not common, knowledge around the times of the events, and appeared unchallenged in major national media. ~~~~~~~~~~ For those interested in the US Constitution -
Unfortunately somebody spotted this inclusion and he did not get his divorce in the end .It did, however, give the rule a name. Such a clause is called a 'town clerk's clause'.
. It was now to be a condition of any club holding or applying for a licence to supply alcohol that it did not have any rule or practice that discriminated against women and any club so offending was to lose its licence forthwith. 
