Gray said: Morning Steve! Good posts over there at Gilliards place, was fun, thx!

Good Afternoon Gray!

FYI: I’m not the SteveK posting at Gilliards… Sagacious remarks attributed to me are often those of others. :>)

Btw, you left me with the impression you’re interested in the ideology of lawlessness. Maybe needless to say, I stand by my opinion that the Bush administration is trying to make a case for absolute power of the CiC.
But now I rally have to get something to eat…

“a line item veto, which can still be overridden by congress�
By a constitutional majority! How often is the House this united???

There are tons of historical examples of congress overrideing presidental veto. And again, the nature of the veto isn’t policy related. This would not give him the power to veto pro-gay marriage laws or similar social mandates, but rather veto any single line of spending. Senators are people too, with their own egos/carrers, and if any president started eroding their powers of the purse I think you would see them unite very quickly.

Also, Show me where Gonzalez or anyone in the adminstration has said that Bush “isn’t bound by any laws as commander in chief”. Sure, they think the president should be given a stronger set of wartime powers, but the “Dictator Bush” meme is about as reasonable as the “Global Warming is a Liberal Conspiracy” meme.

I think that by exagerating the desires of the Bush administration you are not only clouding the current political debate, but also helpin legitamize and downplay the effects of the true dictators in the world who abuse and oppress their people.

Don’t forget that the Bush administration lawyers, among them Gonzalez, are standing firm by their reading that the president isn’t bound by any laws as commander in chief. Since the War on Terror can last forever, this is esentially a legal alibi for giving Bush dictatorical powers.

“a line item veto, which can still be overridden by congress”
By a constitutional majority! How often is the House this united???

“I think it is a power desperately needed in this age of pork barel spending”
That sounds positive at first sight. But where does it say that the president may only veto pork provisions? And what would keep the president from vetoing amendments that were necessary to get a bill through House and Senate, with Dem support, for instance? After a compromise has been reached, Bush may simply strike out that lines and the rest of the bill still standing isn’t at all what has been voted upon before. No, too many possiblities for the president to manipulate laws. Don’t mingle executive and legislative powers. Bad idea.

Btw, Clinton wanted the line item veto, too, he didn’t get it. Republicans were strictly aginst it. And there was not a majority in the GOP for this new power. Now, that the Dems are in control, republicans want that. Honi soit qui mal y pense…

Now, as to how I feel about a line item veto…. well I think it is a power desperately needed in this age of pork barel spending, and while I’m not crazy about Bush as being the first president to have the power for more than 2 months (as clinton did) I think the law is actually quite reasonable in the way this was constructed, giving the president line-item-veto powers only over spending measures, not matters of policy.

For example, as I understand it, he could veto a line giving $100mil to stem cell research, but he could not veto a bill which said existing federal funding mechanisms could now be used on stem cell research.

Oh, Stevek weighed in in a discussion about HDTV at Steve Giliard’s blog. A nice ‘tour de force’ across several highlights of technology that started as ‘against the grain’ hacks.

Now a question? What posts? I don’t see a specific link?

As for Michael – no problem. I’m used to receiving much heavier flak from the right side. His cheesy comments won’t hurt me (pun intended, Mike )!

Chavez is dismantling any remaining checks and balances in Venezuela. Of course we’re going to speak out against it. It only becomes meddling if we start trying to force some sort of sanctions or talk about overthrowing him.

I can understand why the Bush administration would be upset by this. It looks like Chavez is going Bush’s “Unitary Executive” one better. With Bush’s signing statements, repeal of Habaeus Corpus, removal of cases from the standard court system, warrantless wiretaps (not done yet, mark my words) and so one … Chavez and Bush look like they’re in a neck-and-neck race for Worst Executive of the last 60 years.

As with Castro in the 50’s, give him ten years of rule with no ability to grow his economy or develop new key economic activities (due to an understandable reluctance of capital to invest where the capriciousness of the ruling government could lose your entire investment at a whim), and then let’s talk about how powerful and influential he really is.

He is grabbing the dictatorial powers now, because in ten years even his own county won’t be so enamored with him, I am willing to bet.

That being said: yes, more Europeans needed!

Hey, I was talking to ‘C’!

Sure Gray…