Moderator: HAZ - Moderators
Except for that pesky thing called the Constitution. The president doesn't have the power of line item veto and the Supreme Court has ruled against allowing it (~1996). So either congress removes the land swap language from the bill before submitting it or the president has an all or nothing decision when it lands on his desk.Jim_H wrote:Line item vetoes of a Federal Law would be performed by the President,
Jeesh even going after NPR, you are in rare form today Jim ;) I grew up on "Car Talk" "All things considered" and "Wait Wait Don't Tell Me" loland that means NPR
Oh, I like NPR, and that is basically all I listen to aside from music flipping, i just get tired of their news. I follow them on FB, and myself and a number of other people began to notice and become irritated with their heavy millennial reporting. However, isn't news a bit irritating after a while? It is generally the same thing over and over, and I am largely powerless to change these otherwise depressing events. Where is the heavy reporting on, "Puppy greets owner at door, holds bladder"? Well, I also follow the Onion.friendofThundergod wrote:@Jim_HJeesh even going after NPR, you are in rare form today Jim ;) I grew up on "Car Talk" "All things considered" and "Wait Wait Don't Tell Me" loland that means NPR
Yep. The Supreme Court struck down the federal line-item veto during the Clinton administration, in Clinton v. City of New York, 524 U.S. 417 (1998). While I like the line-item idea myself, the Constitution just doesn't allow it so we'd need an amendment. Laws require passage by both the Senate and House followed by signature of the President, per the Constitution. But a line-item entails passage by only one house, followed by signature of the President.friendofThundergod wrote:@Jim_H
Gotta go with Chumley on this one Jim, you are definitely the authority on weather and forestry but leave this one to the underpaid government teacher ;)
Chumley is right, I think your confusion might be in the wording of line-item veto, yes it is reserved for the "executive authority" but in this case the executive authority refers to governors (also members of the executive branch, albeit at the state level) nearly every state allows their governors the ability to perform a line item veto. Without using the google machine I want to say Chumley is spot on, Presidents have pushed in the past for the power to utilize a line-item veto and argued that it would prevent "pork barrel" spending, however, the Supreme Court does not see it that way, and I feel it was once granted and immediately struck down..but last part could be my poor memory, either way line-item vetos do not exist at the Federal level, nor are they Constitutional.
We the People
We'll Work With Tribes to Protect Sacred Land
By Jodi Gillette, Special Assistant to the President for Native American Affairs
Thank you for your petition. The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015 (NDAA) became law on December 19. Section 3003 of the NDAA -- which the Administration opposed -- provides for the exchange of thousands of acres of public land to a private company called Resolution Copper Mining. The public lands to be transferred have significant religious, cultural, historical, and archeological value to the San Carlos Apache Tribe and other tribes in the region. For these tribes, the area is sacred.
As Department of the Interior Secretary Sally Jewell said in her statement on the passage of the NDAA, which you can read here, "I am profoundly disappointed with the Resolution Copper provision, which has no regard for lands considered sacred by nearby Indian tribes."
In legislatively providing for the exchange of these lands, section 3003 "short circuits the long-standing and fundamental practice of pursuing meaningful government-to-government consultation with the 566 federally recognized tribes with whom we have a unique legal and trust responsibility. Although there are consultation requirements in the legislation, the appropriate time for honoring our relationship with tribes is before legislating issues of this magnitude." The provision also significantly weakens the environmental assessment generally required by the National Environmental Protection Act -- an assessment that similarly should have been conducted before providing for the transfer of these lands.
Moving forward, the Administration will work with Rio Tinto (Resolution Copper's parent company) to determine what can be done to work with the tribes to preserve these sacred areas.
Tell us what you think about this response and We the People.
You're receiving this email because the address this is where my email address was ;) was entered to sign a We the People petition.
Please do not reply to this email. Contact the White House
The White House • 1600 Pennsylvania Ave NW • Washington, DC 20500 • 202-456-1111
Well that takes all the fun out of an internet forum? :roll:Bradshaws wrote:I didn't post this to start a heated, hate filled discussion.