Forum Home | Log in | Signup | My Page | Rules | FAQ | Boards | Members | Search
« GRITZ Home | Email msg. | Reply to msg. | Post new | Board info. Previous | Home | Next

Re: Trump vs AnotherDeep State Slush Fund 

By: Zimbler0 in GRITZ | Recommend this post (1)
Tue, 02 Sep 25 12:40 AM | 11 view(s)
Boardmark this board | Grits Breakfast of Champeens! 		Msg. 12276 of 12319
(This msg. is a reply to 12268 by monkeytrots)
Jump:
Jump to board:
Jump to msg. #

What I would really love to see?

congress passes a 'monster bill' then 'goes on vacation.

Trump calls the congress back into emergency session. Also calls in the Supreme court.

First, makes a speech on how this 'monster bill' is NOT a Bill. Second, points out that congress is supposed to actually vote before spending 'We The Peoples' money (but isn't). Third, pull out a few of the most outrageous things in the bill, and MAKE congress take a recorded vote on them. (You know congress won't pass something incredibly stupid - that one of them slicked into it.)

Then turn to the Supreme Court and ask "Is this really a bill? Because I am quite certain that this is not a bill and nobody should treat this like a bill."

A 'Bill' should be on a single issue.

When congress takes two separate issues - one America needs, and one that the President really ought to veto - and welds them together claiming it is all one bill . . . It needs to be recognized that that is NOT a bill.

And, of course, if the thing is NOT a Bill, then the President should have the right, even responsibility, to veto whatever is within that he/she feels needs to be vetoed. Just like congress would have the right to take the vetoed portion, write it up as a stand alone bill and vote on it and try to override the Presidential veto.

Zim.




Avatar

Mad Poet Strikes Again.

» You can also:
- - - - -
The above is a reply to the following message:
Re: Trump vs AnotherDeep State Slush Fund
By: monkeytrots in GRITZ
Mon, 01 Sep 25 7:05 PM 		Msg. 12268 of 12319

pocket rescission - Supposedly 'created' by the ICA (impoundment control act), due to wording that appears to authorize a recission without Congressional approval if certain filing request and fund expiration date interaction occur.

Basically it is the long wanted (by Presidents) 'line item veto' power being handed to the President.

My opinion on reading the OMB and GAO 'opinions' on the subject:

The Supreme Court will ultimately throw this out as UNCONSTITUTIONAL, being nothing more than a 'line item veto' with skimpy clothing, for which the Constitution DOES NOT provide.

The lower courts will almost certainly throw it out immediately, the Supremes will take a whole lot longer to make their ruling.

Ya want it ? CHANGE THE CONSTITUTION.

« GRITZ Home | Email msg. | Reply to msg. | Post new | Board info. Previous | Home | Next