........will attach a homosexual amendment in the Senate to the military budget bill ~~ Bush will veto? The amendment endorses the idea that to criticize a homosexual is hate speech, an assault; to actually physically harm one is a hate crime. The Christian argument against it is that pastors could be punished for preaching against homosexuality; the implication is that their "hate speech" might encourage someone to physically harm a homosexual. Sort of like if I legally sell you a gun and you shoot someone, I can be charged with a crime.
p.s. The "hate crimes" bill was passed in the House in May 2007. Bush vowed to veto it then.
Ted Kennedy in action.......
Discussion in 'Political Debate & Discussion' started by DQuixote, Jul 14, 2007.
?
-
Should Bush veto the military budget bill?
9 vote(s)90.0% -
Should Bush sign the MBB plus the repugnant amendment into law?
1 vote(s)10.0%
-
This is why there needs to be a Line Item Veto.
-
Doesn't he have that option?
-
Unfortunately, Congress has never codified a line item veto into law. It's all or nothing. Lots of presidents have asked for it (and governors) but no president has received that authority.
:1_grouphug: <---- praying for line-item veto authority. -
We should not be able to attach amendments unrelated to the original bill itself. This is how things get done against the will of the people. It is sneaky, underhanded and evil.
-
-
Believe it or not, the number keeps changing! Here's the latest........
Senators Edward Kennedy and Gordon Smith have docketed their hate crimes bill for Tuesday. It was passed back in May in the House, but without Kennedy-Smith's homosexual rider. The amendment is currently designated SA 2067. It will amend the federal defense spending bill.
You still have time to call or E-Mail your Senator and send a short, courteous E-Mail to president@whitehouse.gov.
96. S.AMDT.2067 to H.R.1585 Purpose will be available when the amendment is proposed for consideration. See Congressional Record for text.
Sponsor: Sen Kennedy, Edward M. [MA] (introduced 7/11/2007) Cosponsors (1)
Latest Major Action: 7/11/2007 Senate amendment submitted -
Actually, didn't congress give Clinton a line-item veto in his second term, but SCOTUS ruled it unconstitutional?
The Constitution needs to be amended so that this can occur. The only other alternative is that both houses should adopt rules prohibiting the practice of attaching amendments that are not germane (yeah, right). -
-
I don't believe democrats would ever grant it to a sitting Republican. -
Text...........
http://tinyurl.com/ytnotg
S.AMDT.2067
Amends: H.R.1585
Sponsor: Sen Kennedy, Edward M. [MA] (submitted 7/11/2007)
AMENDMENT PURPOSE: Purpose will be available when the amendment is proposed for consideration. See Congressional Record for text.
TEXT OF AMENDMENT AS SUBMITTED: See Tiny URL
COSPONSORS(15):
- Sen Smith, Gordon H. [OR] - 7/11/2007
Sen Leahy, Patrick J. [VT] - 7/12/2007
Sen Specter, Arlen [PA] - 7/12/2007
Sen Menendez, Robert [NJ] - 7/12/2007
Sen Dodd, Christopher J. [CT] - 7/12/2007
Sen Collins, Susan M. [ME] - 7/12/2007
Sen Bayh, Evan [IN] - 7/12/2007
Sen Salazar, Ken [CO] - 7/12/2007
Sen Kerry, John F. [MA] - 7/12/2007
Sen Bingaman, Jeff [NM] - 7/12/2007
Sen Obama, Barack [IL] - 7/12/2007
Sen Clinton, Hillary Rodham [NY] - 7/12/2007
Sen Snowe, Olympia J. [ME] - 7/12/2007
Sen Murray, Patty [WA] - 7/12/2007
Sen Reed, Jack [RI] - 7/12/2007
(iii) is motivated by prejudice based on the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability of the victim, or is a violation of the State, local, or Tribal hate crime laws. - Sen Smith, Gordon H. [OR] - 7/11/2007
-
Senate backers of 'hate crimes' bill criticized for 'sneaky' tactics
A spokesman for Concerned Women for America (CWA) accuses Senate proponents of the so-called "hate crimes" bill of using "underhanded" tactics to ram the legislation through. Matt Barber is denouncing Senators Ted Kennedy and Gordon Smith for attaching the legislation to the Defense Authorization bill.
The top three Democratic presidential candidates -- Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and John Edwards -- plan to take part in a one-hour debate August 9 devoted solely to "gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender" (GLBT) issues. The debate will be televised live from Los Angeles on the Viacom-owned homosexual television network "LOGO." -
Thanks, DQuixote. :thumbs:
I don't like any "hate" crimes bill or law. A real crime is a crime - regardless of motivation. -
When I think about the line item veto wouldn't it allow a President to veto the part of the bill that caused most Congressmen to vote for it and leave the unsupported part? Let's say in this case to veto military funding and pass the Hate Crimes adder. Or was the line item veto only for adders to a bill?
-
If line-item-veto existed, it would enable the President to go through the legislation line-by-line, using his veto only on certain items. If Bush had line item veto authority, he could sign the military budget and veto the hate crimes legislation. It is sickening that something like hate crimes can be added to the budget for our military. But it is done all the time. Make a law about combating crime and someone will add an amendment to build a bridge in his congressional district, or an amendment to study the life of ducks passing through his state. No one actually reads the legislation, folks. They vote "aye" on one bill in order to get some other congressperson to vote "aye" on their pet bill. The other guy or gal never reads what he/she is voting for. "If you'll vote for the hate crimes bill I'll vote for resurfacing your highway 33 from Podunk to Smallton." It is sickening.