CAN THE PRESIDENT VETO ONLINE GAMBLING ADD-ON?
An interesting thought in a desperate situation
Distraught US online gamblers hoping for a reversal of the proposed US law disrupting online gambling financial channels were discussing protests directed at political representatives and an unusual and uncertain avenue called the President's Line Item Veto today.
The Congressional approved Safe Ports Bill to which the anti-online gambling measure was attached late Friday now awaits the President's signature to become the law of the land, but a current proposal whereby the President could have authority to veto a non-germane attachment such as the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006 excited player interest.
The proposal that the President be given this power in addition to the overall authority of a veto has been a cause for some political and Supreme Court argument in the past. In March of this year the White House asked that Congress give the President a line-item veto power and sent a bill to Capitol Hill claiming that it satisfies the constitutional concerns that sunk the last version a decade ago.
Since then it has been re-introduced, and has already passed the House (H.R. 4890 Legislative Line Item Veto Act of 2006 and a Senate bill S. 2381 is apparently in process. As recently as September 5 2006 this proposal was read for the second time and placed on the Senate Legislative Calendar at number 589 under General Orders.
The current version is said to differ from the abortive 1998 proposal in that it focuses more on important appropriations and spending bills, and the attachment of irrelevant (or non-germane) amendments and provisions to these, giving the President the right of veto on the attachments as well as a primary bill in its entirety.
Working on the assumption that they had nothing to lose in the current legislative climate, a number of players were composing last minute appeals to the President, pointing to the Line Item Veto Act and the unusual manner in which the anti-online gaming measure had been attached to the Safe Ports Bill instead of undergoing the more democratic process of debate on the Senate floor.
http://www.online-casinos.com/news/news2990.asp
An interesting thought in a desperate situation
Distraught US online gamblers hoping for a reversal of the proposed US law disrupting online gambling financial channels were discussing protests directed at political representatives and an unusual and uncertain avenue called the President's Line Item Veto today.
The Congressional approved Safe Ports Bill to which the anti-online gambling measure was attached late Friday now awaits the President's signature to become the law of the land, but a current proposal whereby the President could have authority to veto a non-germane attachment such as the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006 excited player interest.
The proposal that the President be given this power in addition to the overall authority of a veto has been a cause for some political and Supreme Court argument in the past. In March of this year the White House asked that Congress give the President a line-item veto power and sent a bill to Capitol Hill claiming that it satisfies the constitutional concerns that sunk the last version a decade ago.
Since then it has been re-introduced, and has already passed the House (H.R. 4890 Legislative Line Item Veto Act of 2006 and a Senate bill S. 2381 is apparently in process. As recently as September 5 2006 this proposal was read for the second time and placed on the Senate Legislative Calendar at number 589 under General Orders.
The current version is said to differ from the abortive 1998 proposal in that it focuses more on important appropriations and spending bills, and the attachment of irrelevant (or non-germane) amendments and provisions to these, giving the President the right of veto on the attachments as well as a primary bill in its entirety.
Working on the assumption that they had nothing to lose in the current legislative climate, a number of players were composing last minute appeals to the President, pointing to the Line Item Veto Act and the unusual manner in which the anti-online gaming measure had been attached to the Safe Ports Bill instead of undergoing the more democratic process of debate on the Senate floor.
http://www.online-casinos.com/news/news2990.asp
uppy:
Dante said:
No he cant Supreme Court ruled in the late 1990's that Line -Item veto is unconstitutional
Supreme Court Deletes Line-Item Veto
WASHINGTON (AllPolitics, ) -- The line-item veto is unconstitutional, the Supreme Court decided , ruling that Congress did not have the authority to hand that power to the president.
The 6-3 ruling said that the Constitution gives a president only two choices: either sign legislation or send it back to Congress.
The 1996 line-item veto law allowed the president to pencil out specific spending items approved by the Congress.
In his majority opinion Justice John Paul Stevens upheld a lower court's decision, concluding "the procedures authorized by the line-item veto act are not authorized by the Constitution."
If Congress wants to give the president that power, they will have to pass a constitutional amendment, Stevens said. "If there is to be a new procedure in which the president will play a different role in determining the text of what may become a law, such change must come not by legislation but through the amendment procedures set forth in Article V of the Constitution," Stevens said.
.
Bush could send the act back for modification. It is very very very unlikely, but if the republican party's poll guides have caught wind of the fall out and they now believe making gambling illegal could cost them their majority in either house come November, you never know.
He's had 6 years. It's about time he gets one thing right.
Sean
He's had 6 years. It's about time he gets one thing right.
Sean
