I bet the President will Veto

[Lord_Have_Mercy]

This anti-gambling bill. I think they are playing this out so vegas can get in position to buyout some of these moms and pops online operations. I think they are gonna let us be concern, angry, and upset. And at the last minute the President will say he don't want this bill attached to the port security bill. And people will be happy as hell and support him right into elections.

HEADLINES: BUSH VETOS HIS FIRST BILL: INTERNET GAMBLING IS TOSSED OUT.

LET'S SEE IF IM WRONG;

 

[royalworld]

i am with you mercy

 

[Vesuvio]

And people will be happy as hell and support him right into elections.

Is there anything to suggest this legislation is unpopular among non-gamblers (i.e. the voting majority)? That's a neutral question as I don't know either way and haven't seen any polls on the issue.

 

[Simmo!]

Fingers crossed you are right...but forgive me if I'm sceptical. I'm not sure "he" even reads these Bills before he signs them off

 

[Westland Bowl]

Fingers crossed you are right...but forgive me if I'm sceptical. I'm not sure "he" even reads these Bills before he signs them off

You're saying that President Bush reeds?

 

[Swede]

You're saying that President Bush reeds?

Oh he reeds alright

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

 

[sneakattack]

correct me if im wrong but i believe bush has only vetoed one bill, a stem cell research. I dont think this is going to be #2. I wouldnt hold your breath on this.

 

[soflat]

There is no chance he would veto a port security bill. In fact he really wants to sign it quickly with the elections coming up and all.

However, I do think the bill leaves the door open for US interests to enter intrastate online gambling at some point in the future.

The foreign online gambling firms never set up operations in the US. Therefore few Americans have a real stake in the current situations and only a small minority of folks really care about this.

 

[jetset]

Does the President have authority or right of veto over specific sections of a bill (such as an Intenret gambling unrelated attachment) or must he either accept the entire Bill before him or reject it in its entirety?

Edited to add that I would be surprised if Bush did not sign this in.

 

[lots0]

Does the President have authority or right of veto over specific sections of a bill

He must accept the entire Bill or Veto the entire Bill.


Bush is going to sign this Bill into Law, there is no doubt about it, Bush is even 'eager' to sign this Bill.

This anti-gambling law will go into effect, the only thing that will stop it now is the world coming to an end in the next couple of weeks.

 

[jon593]

Oh he reeds alright

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

then sits there for 7 minutes when told the country is under attack.


there isnt a chance in the world he will veto a bill that his party got pushed through. the only chance we have now is the supreme court which is a bush appoiiinted court. its pretty mush guerenteed this will go there with all the money that is involved

 

[Peaceful1]

Does the President have authority or right of veto over specific sections of a bill (such as an Intenret gambling unrelated attachment) or must he either accept the entire Bill before him or reject it in its entirety?

Edited to add that I would be surprised if Bush did not sign this in.

There is another bill/issue out there.. which would aid us greatly in this situation (and depending if he does in our favor).. the "Veto Line Act". I don't have the bill number or specifics right now...but basically allows the President to veto certain portions of an act, thus allowing him to pass the primary bill..but throw out some provisions.

PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE use that on Frist's provision!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Peaceful1]

It's officially called the "Line-Item Veto"

 

[Peaceful1]

Ok folks, now what we need to start doing is writing to President Bush about using his "Line-Item Veto" power on this Frist attachment to the approved bill it rode on.

Despite any discouragement, the least we can do is bring his attention to this so it is not overlooked by any means

 

[Macgyver]

I'm going to start another thread with this, but this is something I just cranked out and will be emailing shortly. You can obviously change the name of the person who this is being sent to, but take the time to make sure any pronouns reflect the proper gender.

Dear President Bush:

I write to you as a very concerned citizen in light of the newly passed Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006. I urge you to strongly consider using your “Line-Item Veto” power to pass the port security bill, but veto the part of the bill concerning online gambling that was underhandedly included by members of Congress.

The United States was born on the belief that it is the land of the free. Throughout all the trials and tribulations that the country has gone through in over 230 years, one thing has remained constant and true; Americans have an inalienable right to privacy and the freedom of choice. The Internet Gambling Enforcement Act flies in the face of those rights and forces banks and financial institutions into a role that they do not want nor are equipped to handle.

Secondly, the way the Act was enacted under cover of the port security bill reeks of suspicion and political gerry-mandering. Nowhere in the way the Act was handled by certain Senators recognized the need for a thorough debate and investigation into this timely matter. On the contrary, the Act was slipped into the bill as a last-minute addition into the port security bill that was certain to pass through Congress because of its timeliness and need. No Senators were given the opportunity to voice opposition to the Act or study the issue before a vote was called.

Our government is also built on the belief, though some may consider it naïve, that our elected representatives will act in the best interest of the citizens. The United States could stand to take a long, hard look at the benefits of regulating and/or licensing online gambling as not only an option to ease the national debt, but to also provide financing to hot-button topics such as education or national security.

Again, as a patriotic member of this fine country, I urge you to take the time and consider vetoing any and all line-items that coincide with the Internet Gambling Enforcement Act. Show not only your support of this country’s need for security from foreign invasion, but its need for security from unwanted and unneeded domestic invasion into our homes, personal computers and freedom of choice.

Thank you for your time, sir.

Sincerely,

Now that's what I'm talking about!

 

[Simmo!]

Reads well

 

[Westland Bowl]

Seems good, Macgyver. Me, being me, I prolly modify it to make the fact stand out that this online gambling provision had no debate or discussion whatsoever. And in light of Foley's folly and that Frist was best buddies with him, means to me that Frist and Foley have the same values. Strike out the damn thing!

 

[Macgyver]

I've modified the email/letter a little to put some more focus on what Westland Bowl brought up.

This can definitely be considered a work-in-progress.

 

[lots0]

Old / Expired Link

 

[Peaceful1]

But it has since then been re-introduced, already passed by the House (H.R. 4890 Legislative Line Item Veto Act of 2006 (Introduced in House)) and a Senate bill S. 2381 Legislative Line Item Veto Act of 2006 (Introduced in Senate).

 

[Lord_Have_Mercy]

I bet no one even noticed the picture of bush and the little girl reading. Bush's book is upside down.

 

[footdr]

BUSH WILL SIGN BUT THIS RAISES AN ISSUE THAT CONCERNS ALL CITIZENS

My concern is how many bills are passed using this method. It seems that the elected officials we put in office are not being allowed to debate important issues or actually vote on a certain bill if it is allowed to be attached to a bill that is sure to pass and become law.

That is an issue that should concern all U.S. citizens regardless if they approve of gambling online or not.

This is not the way laws should be enacted! The President should veto any bill that contains provisions which were not seperately debated upon and approved by our represenatives. This is a loss of rights. The right to choose how we spend our money. That issue also affects all citizens.

The problem is no one cares anymore. There is a sence of helplessness. We have no real way to voice our opinions except our votes. Even then it seems once elected the senators and congressman do not always do as they promised. I have decided long ago that we need centrist in office. Individuals that vote based on the issue at hand, not along party lines. Not for political reasons but for the interest of citizens and willingness to hold to the Constitution and Bill of Rights. The Supreme Court's recent decisions have further taken away our individual rights and privacy. People had better start voicing their objections, it is only getting worse.

Face it, we have no way to even let our elected President know our feelings on any subject. We need a change in the way a bill can be passed into law. Our elected Representatives should demand that this underhanded means not be allowed.

 

[quber]

I bet no one even noticed the picture of bush and the little girl reading. Bush's book is upside down.

It's Photoshopped though

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

 

[Peaceful1]

FRIDAY OCTOBER 13TH...deadline

Wouldn't you know it? Friday the 13th is the deadline for the President to pass or veto the bill in which Frist's provision is attached.

The bill was presented to Bush on October 3rd..under the legislative process of enactment of a law the President has 10 days in which to sign or veto and/or move for reconsideration or ask for a postponement.

I will post this under similar threads so all can see.

Let's just hope it's a "Friday the 13th" for Frist and his supporters...not for us!

 

[tennis_balls]

even if the president signs this bill, he still has to get it stamped by the casinomeister before the law is accredited.