Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: When Obama signs a law into effect, he is not responsible... [View all]pinto
(106,886 posts)7. Oh come on. You know it was a blind amendment tacked on to the funding bill that had to be passed.
I am sick of people saying that Obama is responsible for every Congressional maneuver. The addition was made to the continuing funding legislation that had to be passed and signed to maintain government operations.
It's a common ploy on "must pass" legislation.
The President doesn't have a line item veto option. Put the blame where it belongs - Congress, fwiw.
(aside) What does the amendment say? I haven't read it. Would be interested in the specifics of the wording, it's a pertinent issue here and world wide, as you know.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
120 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
yup. They both also blamed him for everything before he even took office
graham4anything
Mar 2013
#31
Of course-- because they're bound to win anyway, see? You should learn to be a good,
Marr
Mar 2013
#64
I've already posted the specific language in the bill, attached to one of your own
sabrina 1
Mar 2013
#94
I thought I was voting for a person with principals, who do you think you voted for?
A Simple Game
Mar 2013
#73
The continuing funding bill couldn't be vetoed, imo. Of course he had the right to veto.
pinto
Mar 2013
#16
I'm not focused on who's right or wrong. It's an interesting piece of political background, imo.
pinto
Mar 2013
#22
Yes, that little rider only removed all regulations that protect our food supply.
sabrina 1
Mar 2013
#87
Oh come on. You know it was a blind amendment tacked on to the funding bill that had to be passed.
pinto
Mar 2013
#7
My understanding is that it was submitted without a sponsor of record. Hence "blind".
pinto
Mar 2013
#89
Until you get a Constitutional amendment allowing for a line-item veto (something I would support),
NYC Liberal
Mar 2013
#11
Nope, unless you're getting paid or otherwise financially benefiting from this, it's a poor excuse.
AnotherMcIntosh
Mar 2013
#60
Yea, shut the government down and kill the Violence Against Women Act to feel more uber progressive.
phleshdef
Mar 2013
#66
Isn't it odd that the people who are so enraged have not been able to point to the problem? (nt)
jeff47
Mar 2013
#71
No. No. He caved to Monsanto for our own good and he couldn't find his veto pen.
Tierra_y_Libertad
Mar 2013
#57
The bill completely removed all regulations and protections that were in place
sabrina 1
Mar 2013
#75
OMG he didn't veto a bill to fund the government that passed with a veto proof majority
onenote
Mar 2013
#81
Then you better get busy finding the super Progressive candidate for 2016 ... or ...
JoePhilly
Mar 2013
#76