Obama Proposes Spending-Cut Procedure

[jackson33]

However, the new proposal has Congress pass the law to make the amendment, rather than giving the President sole authority. The President merely proposes that Congress passes a new bill. I don't see how the Supreme Court's logic applies here; the President is not amending Acts of Congress, Congress is. [/Quote]

 

CR, I understand you interpretations, but simply disagree. If what your thinking is that when the President signs that bill becoming law, then summits request for a new bill to void parts of the passed bill, he/she already has that right. You can assume it's a simple amendment request, but where that ends is with the demand for a vote, which is not Constitutional.

 

because it impermissibly gave the President of the United States the power to unilaterally amend or repeal parts of statutes that had been duly passed by the United States Congress. [/Quote]

 

However for whatever reasons, then are implied in the 1996 decision. As for the current proposed, those that wrote it were very familiar with "THE CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET AND IMPOUNDMENT CONTROL ACT OF 1974", even TRYING to insure any part/parts in the future were found unconstitutional, "what ever legal remains and will still be valid and enforced" (paraphrasing from last paragraph current bill) which is also arguable.

 

http://www.rules.house.gov/archives/jcoc2y.htm

 

What's being attempted and would be practiced by every President, is the evading of responsibility. Frankly this thread and many others, blame or credit the Executive already for the total cost of Government. That cost should be directly laid on Congress, addressed to Congress and solved by Congress.

 

 

Yes, I know your policies, better yet your contributions to this forum as I do Pangloss's efforts. Maybe I just felt is was the polite way of excusing me from a time consuming effort...seemingly going nowhere. Aside from that, I do realize, I might be a the minority here, since certainly Obama and his legal team probably would agree with you, if this not some kind of ploy and have their arguments well planned out....

[Pangloss]

If what your thinking is that when the President signs that bill becoming law, then summits request for a new bill to void parts of the passed bill, he/she already has that right.

 

The difference is that no amendments are allowed (something that the Constitution does not require).

 

 

You can assume it's a simple amendment request, but where that ends is with the demand for a vote, which is not Constitutional.

 

I don't think they have to vote on it, I think they're just agreeing to do so. I don't see where promising to have an up-or-down vote raises a constitutional issue, but okay, I can understand being concerned about the separation of powers. Certainly that's not a line anybody wants to see crossed.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

CR, I understand you interpretations, but simply disagree. If what your thinking is that when the President signs that bill becoming law, then summits request for a new bill to void parts of the passed bill, he/she already has that right. You can assume it's a simple amendment request, but where that ends is with the demand for a vote, which is not Constitutional.

Ah. Yes, I dunno about the constitutionality of demanding a vote. On the other hand, Congress can pass rules of procedure for how bills are debated and voted upon in Congress, and presumably they have the authority to legislate those rules in a bill.

 

We'll see. I'm sure someone who gets their funding cut would sue, and the issue would be settled then.