"Supporters say the bill has been written to meet constitutional standards. They say that while the president can propose items for rescission, or elimination, Congress must vote on the revised spending package and then the president must sign what is in effect a new bill."

cyridel: They say that while the president can propose items for rescission, or elimination, Congress must vote on the revised spending package and then the president must sign what is in effect a new bill.

Right, so it's not really a line item veto, which is still unconstitutional, because the President can't sign into law something Congress didn't write. It's really just a veto with a suggestion for a new law. I mean, that's the only way it wouldn't be unconstitutional for the same reasons as it was illegal in the 1990s.

So since the Republicans support it that means that the Democrats will automatically oppose it right?

Callous: So since the Republicans support it that means that the Democrats will automatically oppose it right?

They should. First, depending on how it's actually supposed to work, it's unconstitutional. Second, that means they get to pass the spending buck onto President Obama, and people like me won't be able to dope-slap them with Article II anymore.

So, let's see:

1. Congress is in the habit of sticking unrelated and inappropriate "amendments" into bills so they can blame the president for obstruction if he has the temerity to veto some bill because of the unrelated and inappropriate amendments.

2. Congress, heroically in my view, at long last gives the president the power to veto certain items attached to bills.

3. The Supreme Court finds something in the Constitution that makes this long-sought remedy to political malfeasance illegal.

4. Congress concocts another version of the same thing that gets around whatever it was the Supreme Court didn't like the last time, and the Republicans agree to give this power to a Democrat president.

Unless there are elements in Congress that are still trying to do the right thing by the Nation, the motivation on all sides completely escapes me.

Callous: So since the Republicans support it that means that the Democrats will automatically oppose it right?

I don't care who the President is, he shouldn't have line-item veto power.

FTA: Under the proposal, the president has 45 days within the enactment of a spending bill to send a special message to Congress proposing cuts to any amount of discretionary, or non-entitlement, spending. Legislation to consider the proposed cuts would move quickly to the House and Senate floors for automatic up-or-down votes with no amendments.

Okay, seems constitutionally fine. President Obama would have to veto the one they sent him, he'd say, "Eliminate this, this, and this" and both houses of Congress would give him an up-or-down vote. It's not really a "line-item veto," and that's why it's okay.

The motivation for Congresscritters is, I imagine to let the wheels of Congress move again (which only ever got greased by the presence of earmarks) while simultaneously shifting the blame for failing to filter out earmarks onto the executive.

If this went to the Court tomorrow, you'd get this law upheld with somewhere between a 5-4 and a 7-2 ; Sotomayor, Kagan, and Kennedy or Thomas as a toss-up in dissent.

As has been said, this is not a line item veto. This is a streamlined process to an up/down vote on Presidential edits to an existing bill - essentially, a quick way to rewrite the bill so the President can pass it without all this bullshiat obstructionism over unrelated and useless amendments.

I'm OK with this.

Benevolent Misanthrope: As has been said, this is not a line item veto. This is a streamlined process to an up/down vote on Presidential edits to an existing bill - essentially, a quick way to rewrite the bill so the President can pass it without all this bullshiat obstructionism over unrelated and useless amendments.

I'm OK with this.

Congress is convoluted and damaged enough as is. It takes a month nearly to get a bill through the Senate just for the mandatory minimum procedure. Do we really want the Senate to slow down by half again? I doubt the Senate could get another vote through, even for just one change, in anything under a week.

It's unnecessary. The President can veto it if s/he cares enough, negotiate with friends on the Hill to get rid of it the normal way, or just sign it. We don't need a 4th option.

All this does is create another option to blame the president when things don't go according to script. It seems great on its face but this would never get to the point it has without an ulterior motive.

ultraholland: so all they're doing is saying the President can offer input

Yeah, more theater, less actual work.

Perhaps the key words in that story were "and his successors"

/planning ahead?

MaudlinMutantMollusk: Perhaps the key words in that story were "and his successors"

/planning ahead?

This.

CravenMorehead: Yeah, they're not doing this for Obama, they're doing it for the next Republican president. You'd like they would wait until 2015 to do it though.

Kind of implies they don't expect to have control of Congress then. Or they're doing so now so it isn't so painfully obvious they're trying to make their President even more powerful.

Makh: MaudlinMutantMollusk: Perhaps the key words in that story were "and his successors"

/planning ahead?

This.

The whole reason I came here.

This may be the most brilliant move ever.

cyridel: "Supporters say the bill has been written to meet constitutional standards. They say that while the president can propose items for rescission, or elimination, Congress must vote on the revised spending package and then the president must sign what is in effect a new bill."

So, it's a veto.

GAT_00: Callous: So since the Republicans support it that means that the Democrats will automatically oppose it right?

I don't care who the President is, he shouldn't have line-item veto power.

I care who the President is, he shouldn't have line-item veto power.

ib_thinkin: cyridel: They say that while the president can propose items for rescission, or elimination, Congress must vote on the revised spending package and then the president must sign what is in effect a new bill.

Right, so it's not really a line item veto, which is still unconstitutional, because the President can't sign into law something Congress didn't write. It's really just a veto with a suggestion for a new law. I mean, that's the only way it wouldn't be unconstitutional for the same reasons as it was illegal in the 1990s.

That seems about right, to me, but I'm unclear on how this differs from a normal veto. I guess it streamlines the process by allowing the President to offer a guarantee of signing the amended bill if Congress puts it back through.

Let's see... they stick in something Obama doesn't like. He vetoes it, then it has to go back to Congress where they can kick and scream about Obama being the actual obstructionist....

Option b) GOP stuffs a bill with pork, Obama uses his veto power, then each congressperson gets to tell his/her constituents that Obama is waging a personal war against their state.

This is General Akbar



This is Admiral Akbar



Now, Subby, did your headline refer to an evil foreign manager, or a trap?

falcon176: I think this is a realization that their only hope at this point is to not impede Obama and hope he farks up then say see?!?!?!?!

Shirley, you can't be serious