"Red line" item veto is unconstitutional. Congress will ignore any "vetoes" he is doing and force it through regardless. That's not a doomer that's reality.
I updated the verbiage to match what you had said. I miss-worded it.
Congress can hold a vote on those unless Trump does an executive over reach and withholds them regardless after the 45 days and goes against the will of congress. Time will tell.
Yeah, I'm surprised he went this route instead of just forcing the veto override vote now. He must have made some deal with Mitch, but I don't trust him one bit.
It's probably the only thing he could have done to even have them consider changing it in an official capacity. They had a veto-proof vote on this bill.
The reality is that he could have vetoed it and it still went through anyway, he could have signed it and given up completely, or he could have done what he did.
A lot of people here seem to think the president has a lot more power than he actually does when it comes to things like this. They call it a veto proof majority for a reason.
Yes everyone understands the veto proof majority on the bill, but trying to stop it isn't the point. It puts the bill back to congress where they can either take the time to read it and fix it as he requested or ram it through and he doesn't get any blame. This "redlining" might serve the same purpose, but violates the presentment clause of the constitution similar to other line item veto bills. If he gets what he wants and he can hold funding for 45 days like some are spouting, great, but congress can just vote on passing the bill as is anyway.
"Red line" item veto is unconstitutional. Congress will ignore any "vetoes" he is doing and force it through regardless. That's not a doomer that's reality.
I updated the verbiage to match what you had said. I miss-worded it.
Congress can hold a vote on those unless Trump does an executive over reach and withholds them regardless after the 45 days and goes against the will of congress. Time will tell.
I'm interested to see what he has planned.
Yeah, I'm surprised he went this route instead of just forcing the veto override vote now. He must have made some deal with Mitch, but I don't trust him one bit.
It's probably the only thing he could have done to even have them consider changing it in an official capacity. They had a veto-proof vote on this bill.
The reality is that he could have vetoed it and it still went through anyway, he could have signed it and given up completely, or he could have done what he did.
A lot of people here seem to think the president has a lot more power than he actually does when it comes to things like this. They call it a veto proof majority for a reason.
Yes everyone understands the veto proof majority on the bill, but trying to stop it isn't the point. It puts the bill back to congress where they can either take the time to read it and fix it as he requested or ram it through and he doesn't get any blame. This "redlining" might serve the same purpose, but violates the presentment clause of the constitution similar to other line item veto bills. If he gets what he wants and he can hold funding for 45 days like some are spouting, great, but congress can just vote on passing the bill as is anyway.