Yeah, whatever. Clearly you don't mind having your views challenged....just utterly unwilling to engage in a rational socratic dialog to defend them against questions.

__________________
"It's a good feeling to shoot a bad guy. Something you democrats would never understand. Americans are homesteaders, we want a safe home, keep the money we make, and shoot bad guys!"

----Denny Crane

I don't believe appropriated funds are actually channeled through the president anyway. Once he signs a bill into law, those funds are given to the appropriate entities, and I don't think a president, once having signed a bill can tell the recipients he isn't going to let them spend it.

__________________
Not a day goes by that I don't see something that reinforces my belief that people are idiots.

Well, you may not BELIEVE it, but where do you think the checks come from? Or does the money magically into people's bank accounts with a swing of the President's pen? No, appropriated funds are administered through the various agencies of the....wait for it.....wait for it....THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH!!! And who is the head of the Executive Branch....wait for it.....wait for it....THE PRESIDENT (in whom the full executive power of the United States is vested). Basically, the Congress sends bills to the President AUTHORIZING him (through the executive branch under his exclusive control) to spend money, it does not SPEND it itself; as the head of the Executive branch, the President then MAY spend appropriated funds, and may also REFRAIN from spending them. That is why they are called APPROPRIATIONS in the constititution and not Expenditure(s).

Of course you are also ignoring the plain and simple fact that for most of our history Presidents HAVE been impounding funds.

Pram's hysterics aside, this is hardly a novel or 'monarchical' notion, it is firmly rooted in our nations history, and the Congress has significant powers of its own to act as a check against any Presidential overreaching or abuse. It can refuse to pass appropriations (authorization) for the president to spend on things HE favors, they may even impeach if that is what it comes to.

__________________
"It's a good feeling to shoot a bad guy. Something you democrats would never understand. Americans are homesteaders, we want a safe home, keep the money we make, and shoot bad guys!"

----Denny Crane

That's what I thought, as well. I recalled the IWR and how it AUTHORIZED, not FORCED, Bush to invade Iraq and figured it would apply here as well.

__________________
If a neocon whines about big government wealth redistribution, just ask him what he thinks about the portion of that big government that sends aid to Israel.

Well, that is not exactly the same thing, but it is similar in that "authorize" is a synonym for "appropriate". But it does underscore how pramjockey has refused to answer my hypothetical about whether an outgoing congress and president passing an appropriations for the express purpose of mainting current troop levels and activities to take offensive action to fight and all insurgents and/or terrorists in Iraq and Afghanistan to achieve the elimination of violence, would that constitutioanlly FORCE the income president to do so? Based on everything he has said thus far, it would. But that is clearly an absurd outcome, therefore, clearly an absurd and indefensible interpretation of the Constitution. And this was after pointing out to him that he was just flat out wrong in his belief that it is that exact sort of situation which outgoing presidents and congresses do NOT legislate because of (clearly having never heard of....or simply never having put 2 and 2 together and getting 4 with regard to "lame duck sessions").

__________________
"It's a good feeling to shoot a bad guy. Something you democrats would never understand. Americans are homesteaders, we want a safe home, keep the money we make, and shoot bad guys!"

----Denny Crane

I stand corrected. I did a little research and saw you were correct.

No need to act like a snotty little child about it.

__________________
Not a day goes by that I don't see something that reinforces my belief that people are idiots.

Well, if you were absolutely certain in your believe, no apology neccesary, you just didn't know what you were talking about.

If you were NOT certain, the time to do "a little reseach" is before you assert that information as the basis for a broad and sweeping constitutional interpretation, or at the very least posed it as a question, rather than a statement.

---end snotty response

Now, not to be snotty, just a bit of constructive advice, I generally find that when you instinctively start of with "i believe" or "i think", you should be very, very careful unless you are genuinely discussing a subjective matter of belief or opinion rather than a matter of fact.

For example, "I believe that people should be allowed to have an abortion" is a declarative statement about a completely subjective object. "I believe the moon is made of green cheese" is a factually incorrect statement about an objective truth.

If you try to use "I know" or just an unqualified declartion where objective facts are concerned, it helps to act as a mental que to be more critical when presenting idea.

These distinctions have always been a big help to me.

__________________
"It's a good feeling to shoot a bad guy. Something you democrats would never understand. Americans are homesteaders, we want a safe home, keep the money we make, and shoot bad guys!"

----Denny Crane

It's actually a simple matter of being not completely sure of something. I'm usually very careful to include "I believe" or "I hear" or some other qualifier to show that I'm PRETTY sure, but not enough to say "I know".
I gratefully accept any corrections when I'm wrong. It was just the presentation of the correction that I took exception to. No big deal.

Like everyone else, I'm guilty of the occasional error in knowledge.

__________________
Not a day goes by that I don't see something that reinforces my belief that people are idiots.

Now, here is the real question, given that your dismissal of a Presidential perogative to refrain from spending appropriated (authorized) funds was based on that mistaken belief, does that cause you to rethink whether or not you accept the notion of presidential impoundment authority?

__________________
"It's a good feeling to shoot a bad guy. Something you democrats would never understand. Americans are homesteaders, we want a safe home, keep the money we make, and shoot bad guys!"

----Denny Crane

Truthfully, I have no knowledge about that subject. When that happens I tend to avoid discussing the subject. I'll let you know when I am sure I'm right about something.

Now, my OPINION is if the president indeed has the power to impound funds which have been authorized by Congress and signed into law by that president, that would be wrong, legal or not.

__________________
Not a day goes by that I don't see something that reinforces my belief that people are idiots.

Why would it be wrong as a matter of principle if it is constitutional? You might argue that it is wrong on a case by case basis, but that doesn't make it wrong period.

Take my earlier example (desperately avoided by those whose interpretation it makes problematic). On the last day of an outgoing Congress the control of which has been lost in the recent congress, and an outgoing President who lost reelection they pass a two year appropriation for the express purpose of funding to continue fighting any and all terrorists or insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan to achieve the complete elimination of violence. Is the incoming President constitutionally obligated to do so? Would it be "wrong" if he was elected on an express promise to have U.S. troops out of Iraq within six months of taking office?

Or what if the outgoing Congress and President signed an appropriation for the nuclear annhilation of France the following March 1. If the subsequent congress could not muster the votes to overcome a filibuster in the Senate, is it your considered opinion that the new President would either be bound by the constitution, or if not then "wrong" to fail to spend that money for the stipulated purpose?

Despite all the hyperventalating about how this would decimate the balance of power between the branches, and create a Monarchy, this is not a hypothetical question of what WOULD happen if the President could do this. We have almost 200 years of direct EVIDENCE of what would happen (because until the late 1970s every president DID exercise this power).

Is the power subject to potential abuse, certainly, ANY power is subject to abuse. But there are more than sufficient checks and balances to discourage any abuse, or to retaliate in the event of abuse. This includes declining to appropriated funds WANTED by the President until he has implemented appropriations for those things congress wants, or ultimately, impeachment and removal.

__________________
"It's a good feeling to shoot a bad guy. Something you democrats would never understand. Americans are homesteaders, we want a safe home, keep the money we make, and shoot bad guys!"

----Denny Crane

Hmmm let's see. ...What's everyone's opinion on line item veto?

Republican: "I'm all for it as long as there's a Republican president."

Democrat: "I'm all for it as long as there's a Democrat president."

Basically it gives the president the power to only pass the portions of legislation that he agrees with. That is a huge power. People who are ideologically aligned with the president will love this abuse of power.... people who are ideologically opposed to the president will hate the abuse of power and cry foul.

Knowing that, it is a devisive and dangerous thing. The impetus behind it is to cut out the pork from what I understand. The pork can be dealt with in other ways besides modifying presidential power.

__________________

Congratulations President-Elect Obama

Yep.

Like a president who actually vetoes bills until the pork's cut out.

__________________
When they come a wull staun ma groon
Staun ma groon al nae be afraid
Thoughts awe hame tak awa ma fear
Sweat an bluid hide ma veil awe tears

A thought I had on this subject.

I originally posted that I felt the line item veto is unconstitutional as it grants the Executive Branch too much power.

This is reactionary thinking on my part.

The line item veto doesn't grant the president too much power, if the House and Senate are aware of a line item veto existing.

It may just force Congress to submit...many small bills pertinent to the subject at hand to the President, rather than large bills with piles of crap in em that they know ahead of time will get vetoed if they weren't thrown into another bill.

Hrm. Now I find myself in a grey area where I'm undecided

Queshank

hmm.. I was thinking of regulating pork, or creating a separate system where pork was used, but not tied directly to bills. Eliminating pork, in some way, doesn't seem to be acheivable, but that would be the best scenario.

Pork is a congressional thing, not a presidential thing. The president should not have to consider it, weigh it for acceptance, etc., so it should be dealt with judiciously before it gets to his desk for signing.

Vetoing every bill with pork that doesn't sit well has not proven to be very efficient at all. It creates a wasteful, cyclical process.

__________________

Congratulations President-Elect Obama