"LINE-ITEM VETO" POWER

Cynthia777

Dormant account
Joined
Feb 4, 2006
Location
My house
Sorry, I know there are a lot of threads out there concerning Frist's latest (and yuck, successful) attempt, and Bryan feel free to move this if you feel it's best... but I just wanted to bring attention to this power Bush has (will get all the specifics and update accordingly).

There is a line-item veto power in which the President can veto certain items attached to a bill... (perfect in this case, as long as he feels the same as we do).. without throwing out the bill entirely, where the bill itself and what is important and relevant can still be approved, yet have the irrelevant or opposed items attached to it removed and not put into effect)
 

Cynthia777

Dormant account
Joined
Feb 4, 2006
Location
My house
One of the primary bills concerning this is H.R. 4890 Legislative Line Item Veto Act of 2006 (Engrossed as Agreed to or Passed by House) and perhaps the most important section of this is:

"`Part B--Legislative Line -Item Veto

`Sec. 1011. Line item veto authority.

Passed the House of Representatives June 22, 2006.

and on the Senate side:
S.2381
Legislative Line Item Veto Act of 2006 (Introduced in Senate)


A vast majority of members of Congress DO support this enactment.

Now its all up to those acts being finalized and Pres. Bush recognizing this and hopefully using this enactment to veto Frist's provision in the Port bill. Even if he does not necessarily support gambling online, let's hope its for the sake of preventing irrelevant issues being attached to primary bills and I'm sure the spending provisions come into play as well.
 

Cynthia777

Dormant account
Joined
Feb 4, 2006
Location
My house
The line item veto is irrelevant in this case. Bush will sign the bill as is. No question about it.

Mgibson99..I understand your frustration and many others' in all this, but this is the only hope we have. At least if we can bring attention to the matter (even if its by writing the Pres. himself) and think as they think.. bring up the issue of "setting a precedence of allowing irrelevant matters being attached to important bills" and of course, the spending issues attached, and paying attention to the "fine print" of what he is signing... we may be able to appeal to him. It is worth a try.
 

Pinababy69

RIP Lisa
Joined
Oct 15, 2004
Location
Toronto, Ontario - Canada
The line item veto is irrelevant in this case. Bush will sign the bill as is. No question about it.

You willing to bet your life on that? I think Cynthia has given you a glimmer of hope here, but it seems that once again apathy and passive acceptance are the standard.

Chances are that you are probably right, but if there's even a 1/2 of one percent chance that Bush may hesitate, you should be making as much noise as possible to the people that matter. Flood the Whitehouse with emails, write ten times a day if you have to, twenty times. Get all your friends to write as well. Stand on a street corner with a friggin sandwich board on, get 100 signatures on a petition and email it to the Whitehouse. Do something, do anything....but roll over and play dead. I really don't get it. :confused:
 

mgibson99

Dormant account
Joined
Dec 20, 2004
Location
Washington DC
I'm not frustrated...just irritated. There is a difference.

While I applaud your attitude and spirit, personally, I am more grounded in reality. Given what we know about this President, I don't see how he can possibly justify anything other than signing the bill as is. Its a no brainer.
 

mgibson99

Dormant account
Joined
Dec 20, 2004
Location
Washington DC
You willing to bet your life on that? I think Cynthia has given you a glimmer of hope here, but it seems that once again apathy and passive acceptance are the standard.
Bet my life on it? Come on.....this is online gambilng! I don't know about you, but I don't take it that seriously.

As far as apathy and passive acceptance, you don't know me or anything about me, so those are harsh judgments to make. I've learned to pick and choose my battles, based mainly on my passion for the issue, but also in part on the likelihood of a positive outcome. I don't feel passionate about this, and I don't see the likelihood of changing the President's mind, so I'm not going to take up the banner and run with it. That is quite different than saying I am apathetic and passive.
 

Pinababy69

RIP Lisa
Joined
Oct 15, 2004
Location
Toronto, Ontario - Canada
Bet my life on it? Come on.....this is online gambilng! I don't know about you, but I don't take it that seriously.

As far as apathy and passive acceptance, you don't know me or anything about me, so those are harsh judgments to make. I've learned to pick and choose my battles, based in part on my passion for the issue, and in part on the likelihood of a positive outcome. I don't feel passionate about this, and I don't see the likelihood of changing the President's mind, so I'm not going to take up the banner and run with it. That is quite different than saying I am apathetic and passive.

Mgibson, my comments were not directed at you specifically, although it does seem that way with the way the thread is unfolding. They are a generalization, and an observation of what I have seen and read (not just here) over the last couple of days. No offense is intended, honestly. You are perfectly free to do as you see fit. But one of my pet peeves are people who profess to feel passionately about something, and who complain incessantly..but when presented with an opportunity to actually do something, tuck tail and run. If you don't feel passionately about this particular subject, again absolutely your prerogative. I also pick my battles carefully, and I see this particular subject as very important, and not just for the residents of the US. There is alot more at stake here, for anyone involved in the industry period.

Again, I apologize if my comments offended you in any way.
 

mgibson99

Dormant account
Joined
Dec 20, 2004
Location
Washington DC
Mgibson, my comments were not directed at you specifically, although it does seem that way with the way the thread is unfolding. They are a generalization, and an observation of what I have seen and read (not just here) over the last couple of days. No offense is intended, honestly. You are perfectly free to do as you see fit. But one of my pet peeves are people who profess to feel passionately about something, and who complain incessantly..but when presented with an opportunity to actually do something, tuck tail and run. If you don't feel passionately about this particular subject, again absolutely your prerogative. I also pick my battles carefully, and I see this particular subject as very important, and not just for the residents of the US. There is alot more at stake here, for anyone involved in the industry period.

Again, I apologize if my comments offended you in any way.
No offense taken....OK maybe a little, so thanks for clarifying your comments. No harm done.

Yes, I sense that you and others are passionate about this for various reasons, and like you said, that is your (and their) perogative to pursue however you see fit. I do enjoy online gambling, so if your efforts are successful, I will thank you personally.
 

Cynthia777

Dormant account
Joined
Feb 4, 2006
Location
My house
It could open up a whole new debate (again, saying that these issues hadn't been brought up in the past...regulating, licensing and taxing, therefore bringing some revenue in to the U.S. rather than spending to prevent it altogether)..but again that is a long road.

I think the way we can best appeal this is to not set the precedence of allowing irrelevant subject matter to be attached to the primary issue at hand (in this case the Port Security bill). That could be a big danger in itself for many issues if we (and the President) allow that to happen in haste.
 

Macgyver

Dormant account
PABnononaccred
Joined
Feb 3, 2004
Location
North Carolina
Hope Bryan doesn't mind cross-posting this ...

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! :thumbsup:
 
Last edited:

tennis_balls

Dormant account
Joined
Mar 18, 2006
Location
Albuquerque, NM
while i respect your enthusiasm to carry on the fight, the battle for now has ended and mounting an appeal at this time is tantamount to hopping about on 4 stubs chanting "it's just a flesh wound!"
 

Macgyver

Dormant account
PABnononaccred
Joined
Feb 3, 2004
Location
North Carolina
A line-item veto is a viable option that the President may consider.

Let me ask this:

People send out emails every day.

How much time would it take to send out two or three more to the politicians?

Granted, it may do no good, but I'll bet people have spent a lot more time on a lot less.

I also know for certain that doing nothing at all will definitely not do any good.

My two cents (still in NETeller). :thumbsup:
 

lots0

Banned User - troll posts - flaming
Joined
Jun 3, 2006
Location
Hell on Earth
The Line item Veto does NOT Exist!

The line item veto was ruled Unconstitional by the Supreme Court.

Old / Expired Link

It is NOT a viable alternitive, it does not exist.

And even if Bush could use the line item veto he would not, because Bush and his followers support this legislation to the hilt.

Don't you people follow your own government? No wonder the government is so f---ed up, nobody seems to know or care about what is going on inside government.

all I can say, its a little late to be bitchen now, you should have educated yourself about the government and voted in the last three or four elections.

This Bill is going to be Law and the only thing that is going to stop it is if the World comes to an end before Bush signs it. Get used to it!
 
Last edited:

Mousey

Ueber Meister Mouse
Joined
Sep 12, 2004
Location
Up$hitCreek
Could someone tell me the status of this: HR 4890 - Legislative Line Item Veto Act of 2006 ?

I'm googling, but dammit, I've read so much political-speak and lawyer-ese these last couple of weeks that my head hurts and I can't tell if this bill has passed or not ......

Thank you.
 

Cynthia777

Dormant account
Joined
Feb 4, 2006
Location
My house
The Line item Veto does NOT Exist!

The line item veto was ruled Unconstitional by the Supreme Court.

Old / Expired Link

It is NOT a viable alternitive, it does not exist.

That was in June, 1998. It has since then been re-introduced, under H.R. 4890 which has already been passed by the House, and under S. 2381. This is a hot issue right now, and differs from the one in 1998 in that it highlights more of the appropriations and spending issues, as well as irrelevant (non-German) amendments and provisions, regardless of whether Congress has voted it in or not, gives the President the right to veto "line-items" of a primary bill.
 

lots0

Banned User - troll posts - flaming
Joined
Jun 3, 2006
Location
Hell on Earth
Legislative Line Item Veto Act of 2006 (Placed on Calendar in Senate)[H.R.4890.PCS]

Outdated URL (Invalid)

It will never see the light of day in the Senate, it was shelved in August 2006, it is a dead bill.

The Supreme Court has Ruled that Congress does not have the power to grant the president the line item veto.

The only way to give the president the line item veto now is to amend the Constitution, and that ain't ever gonna happen.
 

jetset

RIP Brian
Joined
Feb 22, 2001
Location
Earth
A line-item veto is a viable option that the President may consider.

Let me ask this:

People send out emails every day.

How much time would it take to send out two or three more to the politicians?

Granted, it may do no good, but I'll bet people have spent a lot more time on a lot less.

I also know for certain that doing nothing at all will definitely not do any good.

My two cents (still in NETeller). :thumbsup:

Good on you, Mac - well said! :thumbsup:
 

Casinomeister

Forum Cheermeister
Staff member
Joined
Jun 30, 1998
Location
Bierland
The Line item Veto does NOT Exist!

The line item veto was ruled Unconstitional by the Supreme Court.

Old / Expired Link

It is NOT a viable alternitive, it does not exist.

And even if Bush could use the line item veto he would not, because Bush and his followers support this legislation to the hilt.

Don't you people follow your own government? No wonder the government is so f---ed up, nobody seems to know or care about what is going on inside government.

all I can say, its a little late to be bitchen now, you should have educated yourself about the government and voted in the last three or four elections.

This Bill is going to be Law and the only thing that is going to stop it is if the World comes to an end before Bush signs it. Get used to it!
Okay - who are you addressing? Me? The entire forum? Or Macgyver?

C'mon man - chill. Don't take your frustrations out on the entire forum. Many of us vote, and many of us know what's up in Congress, etc. Thanks!
 

Pinababy69

RIP Lisa
Joined
Oct 15, 2004
Location
Toronto, Ontario - Canada
Now that's what I'm talking about! :thumbsup:

And precisely what I am talking about too!!! Awesome letter Mac..and as you stated, it will take two minutes to copy, amend as necessary and hit send. :notworthy :thumbsup:

People, instead of making a negative post here...why don't you spend that two minutes sending a copy of that letter? It may not help, but it certainly won't hurt will it? And just think of the satisfaction it will bring you when you can come back here in a few days or whenever, and tell me "told ya so". And I will eat the necessary amount of crow, and then I will STFU!!! Yeah, like that's gonna happen, lol. :D
 

Casinomeister

Forum Cheermeister
Staff member
Joined
Jun 30, 1998
Location
Bierland
Does anyone have the President's email address handy? :D
 

Cynthia777

Dormant account
Joined
Feb 4, 2006
Location
My house
See link:
You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.


Bush calls for line-item veto
By Stephen Dinan
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
March 7, 2006


President Bush yesterday demanded that Congress give him a line-item veto power and sent a bill to Capitol Hill that he said satisfies the constitutional concerns that sunk the last version a decade ago.

It has not been shelved, by the way.. it is still an issue
 
Top