Voices from the past

[PhilK]

I have been reading through a brief biography of Zachary Taylor and his presidency. (Zachary Taylor by John S.D. Eisenhower)

There was an interesting passage that I wanted to share:

"I reiterate what I have often said...I am a Whig but not an ultra Whig. If elected I would not be the mere president of a party - I would endeavor to act independent of party domination and should feel bound to administer the Government untrammelled by party schemes.
Second-the veto power-the power given by the Constitution to the Executive to exercise his veto is a high conservative power; but in my opinion it should never be exercised except in case of clear violation of the Constitution, or manifest haste or want of due consideration by the Congress-Indeed I have thought for many years past, that known opinions and wishes of the Executive have exercised undue and injurious influence upon the Legislative Department of the government and from this cause I have thought that our system was in danger of undergoing a great change from its true theory."

- From the first "Allision Letter" signed by Zachary Taylor, April 1848.

Just wanted to share that. So, ponder away.

[reddog]

A great paragraph to ponder, Sir. It really sounds good on paper, but I wonder what goes on behind closed doors in our Nation's Capital. I have wondered why the recent Presidents have not used their power of the 'line item veto' very often. There is so much 'pork' attached to Legislated Bills that causes me to wonder if they ever bother to even read the final print. Bend over tax payer, you're about to get the shaft.....again.
Easy Brother,
Reddog...

[03_SHOOTER]

I have wondered why the recent Presidents have not used their power of the 'line item veto' very often. There is so much 'pork' attached to Legislated Bills that causes me to wonder if they ever bother to even read the final print. Bend over tax payer, you're about to get the shaft.....again.
Easy Brother,
Reddog...

The main reason that the Presidents haven't used the "line item veto" is because the Supreme Court ruled it un-Constitutional in 1998, just over 2 years after Congress enacted it. Yet another example of the abortion called "judicial review" trumping the very clear plan of the framers of the Constitution, but they're the Supreme Court, so their having to actually bother reading the Debates of the Federal Convention and understanding that the VETO, and 2/3's override was the framers answer to "judicial review", and that the "Supreme Court" was never supposed to have that authority is completely out of the question.

[reddog]

Thank you, -03. I am embarrased that I didn't know that. Talking without research is much like fishing without a hook. Today, I got skunked, but reminded to 'tighten up'. I took for granted what I thought should be, another big mistake when dealing with politics. Thanks for being on the ball, -03! :o
Easy Brother,
Reddog...

[03_SHOOTER]

Thank you, -03. I am embarrased that I didn't know that. Talking without research is much like fishing without a hook. Today, I got skunked, but reminded to 'tighten up'. I took for granted what I thought should be, another big mistake when dealing with politics. Thanks for being on the ball, -03! :o
Easy Brother,
Reddog...

Not a problem reddog, nobody can keep up with everything or knows everything about everything, and this just happened to be one of the things that slipped past you. It's all good!