PDA

View Full Version : There is at least one new position Paul will have to create




Perry
09-26-2007, 10:59 AM
At the very least President Paul will have to hire a full time position to handle the line item veto under his watch. That man will execute the line item veto like a squirrel goes through nuts.:D I'm picturing it like a Gavel hitting Oak. Bam...Bam Bam Bam!!:p

noxagol
09-26-2007, 11:11 AM
Presidents have line item veto now?

tekkierich
09-26-2007, 11:25 AM
The line item veto is abhorrant. It lets the President pick and chose what he likes about a law essentially making his own legislation. I do not and would not support it. It concentrates incredible power in the executive and is not how the founders intended things to work.

Perry
09-26-2007, 11:29 AM
Presidents have line item veto now?

They don't but if they want any bill to pass under Pauls watch they damned well better approve the line item veto.:D

Chester Copperpot
09-26-2007, 11:29 AM
At the very least President Paul will have to hire a full time position to handle the line item veto under his watch. That man will execute the line item veto like a squirrel goes through nuts.:D I'm picturing it like a Gavel hitting Oak. Bam...Bam Bam Bam!!:p

Supreme Court has already declared it unconstitutional.. It was reveresed during Clintons term

ARealConservative
09-26-2007, 11:30 AM
Paul would veto the line item veto.

Perry
09-26-2007, 11:30 AM
The line item veto is abhorrant. It lets the President pick and chose what he likes about a law essentially making his own legislation. I do not and would not support it. It concentrates incredible power in the executive and is not how the founders intended things to work.

What is abhorrent is the garbage/pork that goes into most bills. As with any power it's correct use depends totally upon who is in office.

For the record this thread was meant to be more comical than anything else.

constituent
09-26-2007, 11:36 AM
What is abhorrent is the garbage/pork that goes into most bills. As with any power it's correct use depends totally upon who is in office.

For the record this thread was meant to be more comical than anything else.

ok, lol.

but really though. i wouldn't support a line item veto, even w/ dr. Paul in charge.

john_anderson_ii
09-26-2007, 12:17 PM
That's ok, because Paul can use that guy to go through and trash all the previous executive orders and signing statements. He'll need a few understudies to handle that.

bbachtung
09-26-2007, 12:27 PM
RP opposes the line item veto on principle. It violates the separation of powers contained in the Constitution by turning the President into a legislator. RP will veto any budge that is not balanced, so the line item veto would just waste ink.