Comments on: Senate Democrats Fight Gregg Rescission Amendment

By: jpe

jpe — Thu, 18 Jan 2007 04:11:28 +0000

Sure looks unconstitutional to me. The courts have generally been hardasses on the veto. If a bill is passed, the President can either pass it or veto it. End of story. The current bill seems to cut out some middlemen, but those middlemen (veto, resubmission, repassage) are probably constitutionally requred.

By: talboito

talboito — Thu, 18 Jan 2007 01:19:08 +0000

I agree this amendment appears to be either: 1) not what the President's job is within the legislative process or 2) merely reaffirming what the President's job is within the legislative process.

Either/or the whole thing is meaningless grandstanding by McConnell, Demint, Gregg, et al.

By: Blue Crab Boulevard » Yup. Meaningful Reform Again.

Blue Crab Boulevard » Yup. Meaningful Reform Again. — Thu, 18 Jan 2007 00:35:57 +0000

[...] UPDATE: Others: Instapundit, Power Line, Outside The Beltway, Club for Growth, PoliPundit, [...]

By: DaveD

DaveD — Wed, 17 Jan 2007 23:36:22 +0000

When I think about this, I ask myself does a President really, really want this power conferred on him. Being the very visible top of the heap in the executive branch, does a President want to be responsible for being blamed for not eliminating an earmark with no blame falling on the shoulders of the porker who originally slipped the earmark into a bill in thhe first place? I am sure it would be only a short matter of time before those accusations arose. Plus, many Presidents likely find themselves not having a large same party congressional majority with which to ease their agenda through the legislative process. Will a President then have to worry what kind of coalition he can build for his programs depending upon who he offends by eliminating particular earmarks? I am not sure this executive privilege will prove as efffective as believed.