A slightly changed line-item that should avoid the previous objection has been floating around for a while now. Don't remember how they did that though.
A slightly changed line-item that should avoid the previous objection has been floating around for a while now. Don't remember how they did that though.
According to Wikipedia, the latest proposals have been that the president can automatically send a bill to Congress (another power the Executive doesn't have) for a simple majority vote on a single line item that has to be acted on within x days and can't be filibustered. Some people say this makes it Constitutional, but I don't think the SCOTUS would see it that way.
a5ehren on
0
Options
lonelyahavaCall me Ahava ~~She/Her~~Move to New ZealandRegistered Userregular
edited January 2011
so the speech is at 9, what time is pregame? about 730? 8?
I'd like to see (liberal) clarifications on the 2nd and 4th (not that I trust Congress to do what I want for either of these) while also removing any possibility of corporate personhood.
Depends if a Republican was President when the case made it to SCOTUS.
True, but Bush couldn't even get the watered-down version through Congress during the end of his term (he asked for it during the 2006 SoTU), so I doubt it'll pass anyway.
I'd like to see (liberal) clarifications on the 2nd and 4th (not that I trust Congress to do what I want for either of these) while also removing any possibility of corporate personhood.
I'm remembering something back from when Obama went to that Question Time thing with the GOP, and a GOP-er actually brought up the possiblity of reinstating the line-item veto. I think it was actually Paul Ryan.
EDIT: HA! Knew it. He actually introduced the bill in the House, a companion to a bill in the Senate introduced by McCain and Feingold.
But still, how is the line-item veto going to fix anything?
.....magic?
The line item veto cuts both ways. Ideally, it'd be nice to cut out ridiculous items, but the reality is that it will turn into a partisan tool, like the fake filibuster. I don't see how anyone thinks its a good idea.
To put us on solid ground, we should also find a bipartisan solution to strengthen Social Security for future generations. And we must do it without putting at risk current retirees, the most vulnerable, or people with disabilities; without slashing benefits for future generations; and without subjecting Americans’ guaranteed retirement income to the whims of the stock market.
A slightly changed line-item that should avoid the previous objection has been floating around for a while now. Don't remember how they did that though.
According to Wikipedia, the latest proposals have been that the president can automatically send a bill to Congress (another power the Executive doesn't have) for a simple majority vote on a single line item that has to be acted on within x days and can't be filibustered. Some people say this makes it Constitutional, but I don't think the SCOTUS would see it that way.
I fully support this, but think it'd be better as an amendment. If the president signs a bill before it is voted on, then it goes to the House, straight to the floor, for debate and then a vote, then to the Senate, same thing, debate (for a specific period of time), then a vote. Up or down, no filibuster, no changes.
Apparently gun control will not be largely touched on during SotU. Chris Matthews seems to have a source that confirmed they well address it separately, so as not to steal the headline away from jobs.
I'm looking at HuffPo now and they're all "DID OBAMA DELIVER?" with a picture of him addressing Congress. Below that is a bunch of headlines that seriously read like it's already happened.
Posts
Yeah if we're going to start the amendment process (which is what that would take), I can think of a few other things I'd rather have first.
According to Wikipedia, the latest proposals have been that the president can automatically send a bill to Congress (another power the Executive doesn't have) for a simple majority vote on a single line item that has to be acted on within x days and can't be filibustered. Some people say this makes it Constitutional, but I don't think the SCOTUS would see it that way.
Democrats Abroad! || Vote From Abroad
I'd like to see (liberal) clarifications on the 2nd and 4th (not that I trust Congress to do what I want for either of these) while also removing any possibility of corporate personhood.
True, but Bush couldn't even get the watered-down version through Congress during the end of his term (he asked for it during the 2006 SoTU), so I doubt it'll pass anyway.
Yeah, my actual (unrealistic) requests would be:
1) Corporations aren't people, nimrods.
2) Money isn't speech.
EDIT: HA! Knew it. He actually introduced the bill in the House, a companion to a bill in the Senate introduced by McCain and Feingold.
I mean, not much has happened really in the past year. Country is just waiting out a shitty economy it seems.
It's the SotU. They clap every time the president stops to take a breath.
You'll know who's who when at the president's word all the dems stab the republican sitting next to them in the chest.
It is after all, a trap.
God that would be amazing. I'd turn into a republican if they did that.
Or call him a liar.......
Gonna be hard to hear her from her undisclosed location.
The line item veto cuts both ways. Ideally, it'd be nice to cut out ridiculous items, but the reality is that it will turn into a partisan tool, like the fake filibuster. I don't see how anyone thinks its a good idea.
NintendoID: Nailbunny 3DS: 3909-8796-4685
On wireless and high speed rail
Obama sets 98% wireless coverage w/in five years; w/in 25 years, 80% access to high speed rail
On corporate taxes:
On Obamacare:
He's willing to "look at" other ideas to lower h/c costs like "medical malpractice reform to rein in frivolous lawsuits."
On spending freeze:
Full text of a draft here.
EDIT:
Social Security
To put us on solid ground, we should also find a bipartisan solution to strengthen Social Security for future generations. And we must do it without putting at risk current retirees, the most vulnerable, or people with disabilities; without slashing benefits for future generations; and without subjecting Americans’ guaranteed retirement income to the whims of the stock market.
So olive branches to the right are basically:
I fully support this, but think it'd be better as an amendment. If the president signs a bill before it is voted on, then it goes to the House, straight to the floor, for debate and then a vote, then to the Senate, same thing, debate (for a specific period of time), then a vote. Up or down, no filibuster, no changes.
chris matthews looks like hell. like absolute hell.
Democrats Abroad! || Vote From Abroad
Also, yes, he looks very tired.
How bad did we get screwed on Social Security?
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
edit: heheh, prom night. I hope whoever brought Michelle Bachmann didn't spend too much on dinner.
Democrats Abroad! || Vote From Abroad
Seriously?
I'm looking at HuffPo now and they're all "DID OBAMA DELIVER?" with a picture of him addressing Congress. Below that is a bunch of headlines that seriously read like it's already happened.
WTF, HuffPo. Christ.