Ethics reform derailed in Senate

[danarhea]

Senate Republicans have been successful in stopping the Ethics Reform bill, already passed in the House, from coming to the floor for a vote. However, there is more to this than meets the eye.

At the center of the controversy was an amendment put forth by Judd Gregg (R-New Hampshire) which would give President Bush line item veto power. Some Democrats are suggesting that this was a poison pill used to defeat the bill, but Democrats themselves used a similar tactic last fall to add an amendment to proposed legislation.

I have mixed feelings on this one, but if Republicans want to give Bush the line item veto, they should introduce it as a separate bill, since this has nothing to do with the ethics reform bill.

Although it seems that Republicans had a legitimate reason to block ethics reform, and used the same tactic used by Democrats in the past to attempt to further their agenda, which in this case is a good agenda, they are going to be seen as obstructionist, and to that end, it seems that they are playing right into the Democrats' hands.

One further note: The last time the line item veto was passed (During the Clinton administration), the Supreme Court knocked it down.

Article is here.

 

[Iriemon]

Senate Republicans have been successful in stopping the Ethics Reform bill, already passed in the House, from coming to the floor for a vote. However, there is more to this than meets the eye.

At the center of the controversy was an amendment put forth by Judd Gregg (R-New Hampshire) which would give President Bush line item veto power. Some Democrats are suggesting that this was a poison pill used to defeat the bill, but Democrats themselves used a similar tactic last fall to add an amendment to proposed legislation.

I have mixed feelings on this one, but if Republicans want to give Bush the line item veto, they should introduce it as a separate bill, since this has nothing to do with the ethics reform bill.

Although it seems that Republicans had a legitimate reason to block ethics reform, and used the same tactic used by Democrats in the past to attempt to further their agenda, which in this case is a good agenda, they are going to be seen as obstructionist, and to that end, it seems that they are playing right into the Democrats' hands.

One further note: The last time the line item veto was passed (During the Clinton administration), the Supreme Court knocked it down.

Article is here.

But, would this bill have meant they couldn't get free fancy lunches and sky box tickets from their big corporate sponsors?

 

[Navy Pride]

Senate Republicans have been successful in stopping the Ethics Reform bill, already passed in the House, from coming to the floor for a vote. However, there is more to this than meets the eye.

At the center of the controversy was an amendment put forth by Judd Gregg (R-New Hampshire) which would give President Bush line item veto power. Some Democrats are suggesting that this was a poison pill used to defeat the bill, but Democrats themselves used a similar tactic last fall to add an amendment to proposed legislation.

I have mixed feelings on this one, but if Republicans want to give Bush the line item veto, they should introduce it as a separate bill, since this has nothing to do with the ethics reform bill.

Although it seems that Republicans had a legitimate reason to block ethics reform, and used the same tactic used by Democrats in the past to attempt to further their agenda, which in this case is a good agenda, they are going to be seen as obstructionist, and to that end, it seems that they are playing right into the Democrats' hands.

One further note: The last time the line item veto was passed (During the Clinton administration), the Supreme Court knocked it down.

Article is here.

Don't be so naive, the Line Item veto would never pass by itself .........

 

[Cremaster77]

Don't be so naive, the Line Item veto would never pass by itself .........

I thought part of the reason people are asking for the line item veto is to prevent riders attached to unrelated bills. You're saying that the only way to get that line item veto passed to prevent riders is to attach it as a rider to an unrelated bill?

 

[jfuh]

Senate Republicans have been successful in stopping the Ethics Reform bill, already passed in the House, from coming to the floor for a vote. However, there is more to this than meets the eye.

At the center of the controversy was an amendment put forth by Judd Gregg (R-New Hampshire) which would give President Bush line item veto power. Some Democrats are suggesting that this was a poison pill used to defeat the bill, but Democrats themselves used a similar tactic last fall to add an amendment to proposed legislation.

I have mixed feelings on this one, but if Republicans want to give Bush the line item veto, they should introduce it as a separate bill, since this has nothing to do with the ethics reform bill.

Although it seems that Republicans had a legitimate reason to block ethics reform, and used the same tactic used by Democrats in the past to attempt to further their agenda, which in this case is a good agenda, they are going to be seen as obstructionist, and to that end, it seems that they are playing right into the Democrats' hands.

One further note: The last time the line item veto was passed (During the Clinton administration), the Supreme Court knocked it down.

Article is here.

I agree, line item vetos I have a bit of mixed feeling towards it. How about this, pres gets his line item veto - then the supreme court acts as a kind of spell check towards those "vetos".

 

[Navy Pride]

I thought part of the reason people are asking for the line item veto is to prevent riders attached to unrelated bills. You're saying that the only way to get that line item veto passed to prevent riders is to attach it as a rider to an unrelated bill?

That is about it.......The democrats will never give a republican president the line item veto on its own....

 

[danarhea]

That is about it.......The democrats will never give a republican president the line item veto on its own....

Then the GOP should introduce its own line item veto bill. If the Democrats shoot it down, then they can call the Democrats obstructionist. As it stands now, the Republicans have just shot themselves in the foot, and most Americans see THEM as the obstructionists.

 

[Cremaster77]

That is about it.......The democrats will never give a republican president the line item veto on its own....

Why would any Congress give any President a line item veto if it's already been determined to be Unconstitutional by the SC? It's folly to think otherwise and as such to shoot down the Ethics Reform bill over an unrelated matter certainly reflects badly on the Republicans.

 

[Navy Pride]

Then the GOP should introduce its own line item veto bill. If the Democrats shoot it down, then they can call the Democrats obstructionist. As it stands now, the Republicans have just shot themselves in the foot, and most Americans see THEM as the obstructionists.

Calling them obstructionists goes without saying......That does not get the job done though and the line item veto is badly needed......

 

[Navy Pride]

Why would any Congress give any President a line item veto if it's already been determined to be Unconstitutional by the SC? It's folly to think otherwise and as such to shoot down the Ethics Reform bill over an unrelated matter certainly reflects badly on the Republicans.

Sadly it happens all the time by both parties.......

 

[danarhea]

Calling them obstructionists goes without saying......That does not get the job done though and the line item veto is badly needed......

I agree with you on this one. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court does not, and I do not understand why. Congress makes the bill, the President could veto items in the bill, and Congress could still override, if they had the votes. Looks perfectly Constitutional to me.

Having said that, I believe the GOP could have handled this in a much better manner. They did not, and it is coming back to bite them right on the keester. However, Ethics Reform is not dead yet. One Republican lawmaker called this just a bump in the road, and it could very well be just that. Let's hope so. Ethics reform is badly needed.

 

[RightinNYC]

I thought part of the reason people are asking for the line item veto is to prevent riders attached to unrelated bills. You're saying that the only way to get that line item veto passed to prevent riders is to attach it as a rider to an unrelated bill?

hilarious post.:lol:

 

[RightinNYC]

Why would any Congress give any President a line item veto if it's already been determined to be Unconstitutional by the SC? It's folly to think otherwise and as such to shoot down the Ethics Reform bill over an unrelated matter certainly reflects badly on the Republicans.

Because it was determined unconstitutional by the old SC, and they're hoping the new SC will find otherwise, which they might.

 

[jamesrage]

Senate Republicans have been successful in stopping the Ethics Reform bill, already passed in the House, from coming to the floor for a vote. However, there is more to this than meets the eye.

At the center of the controversy was an amendment put forth by Judd Gregg (R-New Hampshire) which would give President Bush line item veto power. Some Democrats are suggesting that this was a poison pill used to defeat the bill, but Democrats themselves used a similar tactic last fall to add an amendment to proposed legislation.

I have mixed feelings on this one, but if Republicans want to give Bush the line item veto, they should introduce it as a separate bill, since this has nothing to do with the ethics reform bill.

Although it seems that Republicans had a legitimate reason to block ethics reform, and used the same tactic used by Democrats in the past to attempt to further their agenda, which in this case is a good agenda, they are going to be seen as obstructionist, and to that end, it seems that they are playing right into the Democrats' hands.

One further note: The last time the line item veto was passed (During the Clinton administration), the Supreme Court knocked it down.

Article is here.

On the surface the line item veto sounds like a good idea.The president could pass some of the good things in a bill and disregard any junk,of course it can be a double edge sword too in the sense if Bush was handed a compromise immigration bill he could pass all the amnesty for illegals and guest worker nonsense and disregard any thing that would crack down on illegal immigration.

 

[Stinger]

Don't be so naive, the Line Item veto would never pass by itself .........

And the courts have stated would require a constitutional amendment.