- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Quote:The aides did make one thing clear to Richardson, the Internet Gambling Enforcement Act has many loopholes that are too big to be put into law, therefore, the bill has a high probability of being thrown back to Congress to be redefined at some point in the future.
… a large scale protest held in early November (right before elections) would carry a good deal of weight in which way the law will go.
Ever enter anyones mind that the bill is purposefully weak? It would make sense (especially in light of Harrah’s funding Frist’s ambitions) that they WANT the bill to be weak so that it HAS to go back for changes.
Only makes sense to me.
I remain optimistic and it will be business as usual.
Georgie made a statement long ago that if an anti-internet gambling bill reached his desk he would sign it without question.
I don’t see republicans winning this year. For the first time I may be voting democrat.
1. Once a bill is PASSED by the house and senate it goes to the president for his signing it into law. There are no further reviews or modifications made AFTER a bill is voted on and passed. Bills go to committee for mark ups and modification PRIOR to a vote. I heard the same wishful rumors that some secret banking committee was hard at work carving up the bill, but thats patently untrue and is illegal.
2. There is NO LINE ITEM VETO. The president cannot cut out a portion of any bill he finds objectionable. He can either sign the ENTIRE bill into law or he can Veto it. Period. President Bush has been pratically begging for the laws to be changed to ALLOW line item veto. But currently that is NOT what the law states. See his speach here from June 27th 2006 :
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/06/20060627-1.htmlQuote from W:
Quote:I believe another crucial test for the Congress is to whether or not the Congress will pass a line-item veto. And that’s what I want to talk to you about today. A line-item veto would be a vital tool that a President could use to target spending that lawmakers tack on to the large spending bills. That’s called earmarking, and that’s become quite a controversial subject here in Washington, D.C.
I happen to believe that a lot of times earmarking results in unnecessary spending. See, part of the job of the President and the leaders in the Congress is to set priorities with the people’s money. If you don’t set priorities, the tendency is to overspend. And sometimes — a lot of times, the earmark doesn’t fit into the priorities that have been sent through the budgetary process. A lot of times earmarks are inserted into bills at the last minute, which leaves no time, or little time, for debate. Part of the process — a good process is one in which members are able to debate whether or not spending meets a priority, whether it makes sense. Earmark sponsors are often not required to provide their colleagues with a reasoned justification for proposed spending. And not surprisingly, the process often results in spending that would not have survived had it not been subject — subjected to closer scrutiny3. As has been speculated the President most likely hasnt signed the bill yet because they want to get the maximum press coverage and pomp and circumstance lined up for the event. Remember this makes for excellent political fodder “President and Republican leaders are protecting US ports and US Families” Blah, Blah, Blah.
Professor wrote:I heard the same wishful rumors that some secret banking committee was hard at work carving up the bill, but thats patently untrue and is illegal.Correct; they cant change the law after it has already been voted on and passed. The banking lobbyist got most of their desired changes in prior to the bill being attached to the port act by Frist.
Or they are hoping Harrahs buys partygaming this week and then they can veto it after. What a windfall eh
Such poor democratic system that pemits attaching bills one to another. Ridiculous!
Such poor democratic system that pemits attaching bills one to another.
Spot on, Mr Sharp Gambler. The fact that this is legal in the USA is shocking.
As someone who has an honours degree in Politics and Modern History, one of the things that impressed me most about the USA historically is that they were founded by some of the world’s brighest minds of that era. And together they formulated a political system that would work.
Subsequently, the systems has been deliberately corrupted and subverted and attaching one unrelated bill to another is just one example.
I don’t want to get too political but is this really what your Founding Fathers intended? I doubt it.
allfreechips wrote:Or they are hoping Harrahs buys partygaming this week and then they can veto it after. What a windfall eh
Now THAT is good business strategy.
:thumbsup:
I don’t want to get too political but is this really what your Founding Fathers intended? I doubt it.
I don’t think so and I bet they are turning over in their graves as we speak.
