Response:
-- The Mayor has consistently supported the idea of a line-item veto.-- The Mayor believes that the way we got there in the ‘90’s upended the balance of power and violated the separation boundaries. He wasn’t opposing the idea of the line-item veto, he was opposing the way we got there.
-- When discussing the separation of powers issue, the Mayor is not expressing whether the line-item veto is a good thing or a bad thing, he’s simply expressing that he doesn’t think it’s constitutional unless it’s enacted via constitutional amendment – he’s not talking about his sentiments (i.e. – the line-item veto being “bad” or “good”), he’s talking about the constitutionality of how it was enacted.
-- This problem (i.e. – “how we got there” back in the ‘90’s) will be fixed if we bring about the line-item veto by passing a constitutional amendment – here is a quote from the Mayor on this topic from 1998:
* GIULIANI: “I agree with the line-item veto. As a legal matter, I think it can only be done, however, with a constitutional amendment. That is a distinction that's an enormously important one. To have a line-item veto fundamentally alters the balance of power between the president and the Congress, and the president and the Congress are not allowed to fundamentally alter the balance of power between them without getting a constitutional amendment, and as the judge pointed out -- and I sympathize with this -- this may be more efficient, more effective, may even be a better policy, but the president and the Congress do not have the power to fundamentally alter the separation of powers between the two branches. This should have been done by constitutional amendment.” (Lou Dobbs, “Giuliani Discusses Line-Item Veto,” CNN, February 12, 1998)
| 
Gear up for grub with a tripleheader of pigskin, including a meeting of brothers in Dallas. Everybody knows it's been a rough year for her, but find out who else had issues
Posted by Jennifer | November 23, 2007 3:06 AM