AIPAC v. Eric Cantor
Nita Lowey (D-NY) isn't the only one who doesn't like Eric Cantor's (R-Va) idea for segregating Israeli foreign aid from everyone else's. AIPAC doesn't like it either. “For decades, annual U.S. foreign assistance to Israel has been one of the most tangible expressions of American support for Israel and our country’s national security interests. A robust foreign aid budget is a strong signal of U.S. leadership around the globe," said AIPAC spokesman Darren Mackoff. “Congressman Cantor has always been, and continues to be a strong leader on the vital issues surrounding the United States and Israel, as well as an ardent supporter of U.S. foreign aid."AIPAC is an interested party here. If what Cantor is proposing goes through, it would likely have much less to say about aid to recipients other than Israel.
AIPAC has traditionally been a major force in lobbying for aid to Israel, Egypt, and for foreign aid in general.
But what this proposal reminds me of more than anything else is the line-item veto - what every President wants regarding the budget generally and what no Congress is likely to give him. (A line item veto would allow the President to veto individual spending items in the budget).
The 112th Congress would be most unlikely to give this President a line-item veto in general. Why give him one with respect to Israel?
I like and think very highly of Eric Cantor, but I think I'm coming out against this.
posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 9:30 AM
3 Comments:
Not sure I agree Carl. It is important that America clarifies it's relationship to Israel. For too long it has been shrouded as being normal. It is not normal. It is an intimate special relationship that has complexities that other foreign aid does not have. Israel does not have to worry about standing out. Israel already does stand out and people are paying attention. If a leader really wants to screw over Israel he can find ways. It's amazing how an obsessive bigot can subvert any system. It is best that the system is as clear as possible as to intent.
A line item veto bill was passed Congress during the Clinton Admin. the Line Item Veto Act of 1996. As could be expected, somebody whose pork got sliced sued, one federal district court judge ruled it unconstitutional [where the H*LL do these fed. judges get their arrogant delusions of semi-divinity and that they're members of a Super-Legislature?] It eventually went to the Supreme Court. The Supremes didn't rule that line item veto act unconstitutional but tossed it out on technicalities.
Personally, I think a line item veto is an excellent idea, as is also the statutory banning of earmarks.
Another one would be an Amendment to reign in the judicial usurpation of presidential and/or Congressional power. This business of one federal judge tossing out a law duly enacted by Congress and signed by the President must be stopped. It also ties in with judge-shopping, usually by Democrats, who didn't like a bill that was passed and signed over their objections. A classic example of that was the one federal judge (Dem appointee, no surprise!) who, an hour and a half after the passed bill was signed by Pres. Bush, threw out the law forbidding partial birth abortion as "unconstitutional". It should take at least an entire and unanimous District Court of Appeals bench to override the Congress and President and temporarily freeze a law, until the Supreme Court has the last word.
IMO, even more important, if we could get just one Constitutional Amendment passed in this decade it would be for term limitations for Congress. Twelve years total, in both houses combined, for any person. I don't think the Founding Fathers intended such undemocratic obscenities as, for example, Senators Byrd and Kennedy's half-century squats on their senatorial seats. Washington has metastasized into The One Party, of Entrenched Incumbency, with too much of a go-along-to-get-along atmosphere. Even good guys, like John McCain, get co-opted into this mindset. Twelve and OUT!
Sorry, Carl, didn't mean to get carried away with my windbaggery, I just feel strongly about this.
A line item veto bill was passed Congress during the Clinton Admin. the Line Item Veto Act of 1996. As could be expected, somebody whose pork got sliced sued, one fed. district court judge ruled it unconstitutional [where the H*LL do these fed. judges get their arrogant delusions of semi-divinity?] It eventually went to the Supreme Court. The Supremes didn't rule that line item veto act unconstitutional but tossed it out on technicalities.
Personally, I think a line item veto is an excellent idea, as is also the statutory banning of earmarks.
Another one would be an Amendment to reign in the judicial usurpation of presidential and/or Congressional power. This business of one federal judge tossing out a law duly enacted by Congress and signed by the President must be stopped.
IMO, even more important, if we could get just one Constitutional Amendment passed in this decade it would be for term limitations for Congress. Twelve years total, in both houses combined, for any person. I don't think the Founding Fathers intended such undemocratic obscenities as, for example, Senators Byrd and Kennedy's half-century squats on their senatorial seats. Washington has metastasized into The One Party, of Entrenched Incumbency, with too much of a go-along-to-get-along atmosphere. Even good guys get co-opted into this mindset. Twelve and OUT!
Sorry, Carl, didn't mean to get carried away-I just feel strongly about this.
Post a Comment
<< Home