>Trump’s call for a line-item veto, by which he would be able to reject specific portions of a measure without vetoing a piece of legislation entirely, came amid afternoon remarks at the White House Friday in which he excoriated Congress, especially Democrats, for sending him an omnibus bill that met his demand for a dramatic increase in military spending but nonetheless included funding for “things that are really a wasted sum of money.”
>“To prevent the omnibus situation from ever happening again, I’m calling on Congress to give me a line-item veto for all government spending bills, and the Senate must end — they must end the filibuster rule and get down to work,” the president said. “We have to get a lot of great legislation approved, and without the filibuster rule, it’ll happen just like magic.”
>Trump said he had signed the omnibus bill, which he had threatened earlier Friday to veto, but declared he would never again sign such a bill, which, he complained, contained too much spending and had been presented to him with insufficient time to read its 2,200-plus pages. Past presidents from both parties have called on Congress to give them a line-item veto, a power that the governors of more than 40 states possess. Lawmakers passed legislation to give the president a line-item veto in 1996, but that law was overturned in 1998 by the Supreme Court by a 6-3 vote. Is he right, about both the line-item veto and the filibuster? I think so.
Yep, won't stop the Dems from screeching though, when people would've supported it under Obama. The fact that we get unrelated riders tacked onto essential bills is a fucking bullshit.
Isaac Hernandez
The line-item veto was ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court and the filibuster isn't what's caused problems for the Republicans in the Senate, so no, he's completely fucking wrong.
Evan Martinez
It can be filibustered if it doesn't have 60 dem votes. So any bill has to be liberal trash with 9 dems voting on it
Kayden Jackson
This is just Trump trying to sell his betrayal.
>I didn't want to do it >I promise not to do it again >congress will give me the power to veto things in the future
All lies, of course, designed to dupe his gullible supporters into believing he isn't a complete sell out. He could've vetoed it and used the leverage of the government shutdown to negotiate for a better deal. But instead, he quickly signed it and hopped on a plane to the Mar A Lago so he could play golf and bang some more porn stars.
Gavin Long
holy shit, is that you qanon?
Joshua Price
What major legislation has been stopped by the filibuster so far? Obamacare repeal failed 49-51, tax reform passed cloture, and Trump's immigration bill got BTFO 39-whatever. The Democrats attempted to filibuster Gorsuch and the Republicans nuked it for Supreme Court nominees in response. The filibuster and line-item veto are just Trump flaying around for scapegoats for his own absurd incompetence.
Dominic Perry
that's the opinion of 99% of true Sup Forumslocks
John Anderson
yeah, this. Line item veto is unconstitutional. They'd have to amend the constitution to give it to him. He can't even get border funding passed... not gonna happen.
This could be Trump buying support to fire Mueller.
Lucas Lewis
May also be buying confirmation for his 2 new cabinet picks.
Ethan Ramirez
Rand is already a Hard No on Mister & Misses Waterboarding, I don't think either even of them survive a floor vote on confirmation.
politico.com/story/2018/03/14/rand-paul-opposes-mike-pompeo-state-461749 >“I’m perplexed by the nomination of people who love the Iraq War so much that they would advocate for a war with Iran next,” Paul said. “It goes against most of the things President Trump campaigned on, that the unintended consequences of regime change in Iraq led to instability in the Middle East.” There is no upside for any red-state Dems to support these people either so with only a 51-seat majority they already down to 50 votes and that's if nobody else like McCain (if he's even there to vote) opposes them. A lack of filibuster wouldn't save them.
Dylan Gutierrez
>Lawmakers passed legislation to give the president a line-item veto in 1996, but that law was overturned in 1998 by the Supreme Court by a 6-3 vote. So Clinton given it by SCOTUS, then when his term was nearly up they revoked it. Needs revisiting then, the ppl seem unhappy with congress having the more power than the President.
Thomas Peterson
>trump supporters literally fine with him wanting to do something against the constitution because it's big daddy trump
holy hell you niggers are depressing
Parker Moore
They should just pass a law that each bill has to fit on 10 standard pages front and back with a readable size font before it can be voted on.
Oliver Green
Trump is politically dead at this point. Democrats got exactly what they wanted. His base realizes they just got fucked and are disillusioned. Cuntservatives stabbed him in the back and now realize because they've killed his base they no longer have to listen to anything he has to say.
I called this method of attack back in 2016. Trump won the election, but (((they))) would do everything they could to neuter his positions and drive off his base.
Noah Campbell
The problem isn't line item vetos, the problem is having bloated bills that fund the entire government in the first place. The solution is obviously for Congress to break up the individual pieces of the budget bills and so that POTUS can defacto veto specific "line items" without violating the COTUS' Presentment Clause.
They never will for multiple reasons: because it would be more work for legislators, it would force members of Congress to cooperate and compromise and because it would be a lot harder to get pork past the POTUS.
1. I have always been against the filibuster. I was happy when Harry Reid took it away for Executive Branch Appointments when the GOP bitched at Obama filling empty seats on the National Labor Relations Board & D.C. Court of Appeals, and I was equally happy when McConnel took it away for SCOTUS nominees so that Trump could put Gorsuch in Scalia's seat.I think it should be gutted for law-making as well. Otherwise we deserve a new Civil War because the status-quo is un-fucking-governable.
2. I also think it is fundamentally unfair that Legislative branch can hold the country hostage with legal poison pills inserted into otherwise unrelated must-pass legislation and dare the President to either veto the entire thing or swallow whatever they shit out. An all-or-nothing veto has no real teeth against that strategy and leaves the executive branch impotent. If Congress feels so strongly about a given bill becoming law let them override the line-item veto as they already can a regular whole-veto. The SCOTUS was wrong on that decision.
Leo Sanchez
>The problem isn't line item vetos, the problem is having bloated bills that fund the entire government in the first place thankfully the founding fathers put in place a solution for that
it's called a veto and has been used plenty of times. if trump had any honor, he would've vetoed the bill.
but he didn't. because he's not a republican, he's not a conservative, he's just Donald Trump. president cruz would've vetoed the bill.
Wyatt Clark
President Cruz would have never existed, dumbass.
Justin Murphy
This. Although with Trump's cabinet now basically a direct retread of his brothers, I don't see much difference in their alternative administrations except on Trade.
