home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:24677 talk.politics.misc:66012 tx.politics:8086 misc.legal:21941
- Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,tx.politics,misc.legal
- Path: sparky!uunet!well!dasher
- From: dasher@well.sf.ca.us (D Anton Sherwood)
- Subject: Re: Who's weakening the constitution?
- Message-ID: <C07GwA.GA5@well.sf.ca.us>
- Sender: news@well.sf.ca.us
- Organization: Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link
- References: <1992Dec13.070641.9436@anasazi.com> <BzBrC4.L0x@NeoSoft.com> <1992Dec19.235918.4383@mtu.edu>
- Distribution: usa
- Date: Sat, 2 Jan 1993 02:43:21 GMT
- Lines: 16
-
- In article <1992Dec19.235918.4383@mtu.edu> cescript@mtu.edu (Charles Scripter) writes:
- >
- >We could push for a Constitutional Amendment prohibiting this "bundling".
- >Then the President wouldn't "need" a line item veto... [BTW, I believe
- >Michigan has such a clause in their Consititution, restricting a bill to
- >one subject]
-
- But a budget is a gestalt. Suppose the constitution requires a balanced
- budget, and the legislature passes hundreds of spending bills that add up to
- more than the revenue. Which bill do the courts declare invalid? All of
- them? The last one passed? The last one signed?
-
- --
- Anton Sherwood dasher@well.sf.ca.us
- +1 415 267 0685 1800 Market St #207, San Francisco 94102 USA
- "We all hate poverty, war and injustice, unlike the rest of you squares."
-