1. By continuing to use the site, you agree to the use of cookies .This website or its third-party tools use cookies, which are necessary to its functioning and required to achieve the purposes illustrated in the cookie policy.Find out more.
    Dismiss Notice
  2. Dismiss Notice
  3. Follow Casinomeister on Twitter | Facebook | YouTube | Casinomeister.us US Residents Click here! |  Svenska Svenska | 
Dismiss Notice

Poll:Best Screenshot of the Month?



Candidates Revealed...Cast your vote!.
Dismiss Notice
REGISTER NOW!! Why? Because you can't do diddly squat without having been registered!

At the moment you have limited access to view most discussions: you can't make contact with thousands of fellow players, affiliates, casino reps, and all sorts of other riff-raff.

Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join Casinomeister here!

"LINE-ITEM VETO" POWER

Discussion in 'Online Casinos' started by Cynthia777, Oct 3, 2006.

    Oct 3, 2006
  1. Cynthia777

    Cynthia777 Senior Member

    Occupation:
    working
    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)
     
    2 people like this.
  2. Oct 3, 2006
  3. mgibson99

    mgibson99 Dormant account

    Location:
    Washington DC
    The line item veto is irrelevant in this case. Bush will sign the bill as is. No question about it.
     
  4. Oct 3, 2006
  5. Cynthia777

    Cynthia777 Senior Member

    Occupation:
    working
    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.
     
  6. Oct 3, 2006
  7. Cynthia777

    Cynthia777 Senior Member

    Occupation:
    working
    Location:
    My house
    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.
     
    1 person likes this.
  8. Oct 3, 2006
  9. Pinababy69

    Pinababy69 RIP Lisa

    Occupation:
    Crusader
    Location:
    Toronto, Ontario - Canada
    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:
     
    2 people like this.
  10. Oct 3, 2006
  11. mgibson99

    mgibson99 Dormant account

    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.
     
  12. Oct 3, 2006
  13. mgibson99

    mgibson99 Dormant account

    Location:
    Washington DC
    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.
     
  14. Oct 3, 2006
  15. Pinababy69

    Pinababy69 RIP Lisa

    Occupation:
    Crusader
    Location:
    Toronto, Ontario - Canada
    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.
     
  16. Oct 3, 2006
  17. mgibson99

    mgibson99 Dormant account

    Location:
    Washington DC
    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.
     
  18. Oct 3, 2006
  19. tennis_balls

    tennis_balls Dormant account

    Occupation:
    fish n chips promoter
    Location:
    Albuquerque, NM
    i'll stake my life on it.....but what do i get when he signs the bill, pina?
     
  20. Oct 3, 2006
  21. Simmo!

    Simmo! Moderator Staff Member

    Occupation:
    Web Dev.
    Location:
    England
    Abuse
     
  22. Oct 3, 2006
  23. soflat

    soflat Senior Member

    Occupation:
    Scientist
    Location:
    Florida
    How are you guys going to convice Bush? What does the industry offer America?
     
  24. Oct 3, 2006
  25. Cynthia777

    Cynthia777 Senior Member

    Occupation:
    working
    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.
     
  26. Oct 3, 2006
  27. Macgyver

    Macgyver Dormant account PABnononaccred

    Occupation:
    Student
    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. ;)

    Now that's what I'm talking about! :thumbsup:
     
    Last edited: Oct 3, 2006
    9 people like this.
  28. Oct 3, 2006
  29. tennis_balls

    tennis_balls Dormant account

    Occupation:
    fish n chips promoter
    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!"
     
  30. Oct 3, 2006
  31. Macgyver

    Macgyver Dormant account PABnononaccred

    Occupation:
    Student
    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:
     
  32. Oct 3, 2006
  33. lots0

    lots0 Banned User - troll posts - flaming PABnonaccred

    Occupation:
    I do nothing productive
    Location:
    Hell on Earth
    The Line item Veto does NOT Exist!

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

    You must register/login in order to see the 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: Oct 3, 2006
  34. Oct 3, 2006
  35. Mousey

    Mousey Ueber Meister Mouse CAG

    Occupation:
    Pencil Pusher
    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.
     
  36. Oct 3, 2006
  37. Cynthia777

    Cynthia777 Senior Member

    Occupation:
    working
    Location:
    My house
    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.
     
    1 person likes this.
  38. Oct 3, 2006
  39. lots0

    lots0 Banned User - troll posts - flaming PABnonaccred

    Occupation:
    I do nothing productive
    Location:
    Hell on Earth
    Legislative Line Item Veto Act of 2006 (Placed on Calendar in Senate)[H.R.4890.PCS]

    You must register/login in order to see the link.

    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.
     

Share This Page