WATCH LIVE: President Trump and His Coronavirus Task Force Daily Press Briefing

CNN and CBS reporters: Crude, impolite, repititious, inciting, interested only in the past, seeking sensationalism, destructive.

Oh joy!

EXCLUSIVE: Congressman:
Congress Reaches Deal on Funding PPP;
$470 Billion in New Spending
ROBERT KRAYCHIK19 Apr 2020
…
The funding bill includes $250 billion for the Paycheck Protection Program — $60 million of which will go to community banks — $65 billion for disaster loans, $75 billion for hospitals, and another $25 billion for testing.
…
https://www.breitbart.com/radio/2020/04/19/exclusive-congress-reaches-deal-funding-ppp-470-billion-new-spending/

WHERE IS THE OTHER 220 BILLION going to? Only 250 BILLION was allowed for the Paycheck Protection Program that was the purpose of the bill. Mail in votes? Illegal alien bailouts? Pelois was honest for once in her life when she stated, we need to “pass the bill to see what is in it.” She meant it!

Notice a big percentage is NOT going to the purpose of the bill. Only 250 BILLION out of the 470 BILLION is going to the purpose of the bill. Screwed as usual and there is no line item veto – Thanks to the U.S.S.C. that STOPPED that.

I guarantee you that extra 220 BILLION will be for things we don’t want. This is how they widdle away our rights and fund what they can’t get through votes. It works every time. Trump has had a shut down over this stuff and still stuff gets through we wouldn’t want. BOTH parties love to play Santa Claus! So before people start dreaming conspiracies of Trump being on the side of the swamp, understand the hard decisions that need to be made.Trump does what he can… I almost forgot about this –

Line-Item Veto: Why the U.S. President Does Not Have This Power
By Robwert Longley
4./17/20
…
On April 9, 1996, Clinton signed the 1996 Line Item Veto Act,1 which had been ushered through Congress by Sens. Bob Dole (R-Kansas) and John McCain (R-Arizona), with the support of several Democrats.

On Aug.11, 1997, Clinton used the line-item veto for the first time to cut three measures from an expansive spending and taxation bill.2 At the bill’s signing ceremony, Clinton declared the selective veto a cost-cutting breakthrough and a victory over Washington lobbyists and special interest groups. “From now on, presidents will be able to say ‘no’ to wasteful spending or tax loopholes, even as they say ‘yes’ to vital legislation,” he said at the time.

But, “from now on” wasn’t for long. Clinton used the line-item veto two more times in 1997, cutting one measure from the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 and two provisions of the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997.3 Almost immediately, groups aggrieved by the action, including the city of New York challenged the line-item veto law in court.

On Feb.12, 1998, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia declared the 1996 Line Item Veto Act unconstitutional, and the Clinton administration appealed the decision to the Supreme Court.4

In a 6-3 ruling issued on June 25, 1998, the Court, in the case of Clinton v. City of New York, upheld the District Court’s decision, overturning the 1996 Line Item Veto Act as a violation of the “Presentment Clause,” (Article I, Section 7), of the U.S. Constitution.5

By the time the Supreme Court took the power away from him, Clinton had used the line-item veto to cut 82 items from 11 spending bills.6 While Congress overrode 38 of Clinton’s line-item vetoes, the Congressional Budget Office estimated the 44 line-item vetoes that stood saved the government almost $2 billion.6

Denied Power to Amend Legislation

The Constitution’s Presentment Clause cited by the Supreme Court spells out the basic legislative process by declaring that any bill, before being presented to the president for his signature, must have been passed by both the Senate and the House.

In using the line-item veto to delete individual measures, the president is actually amending bills, a legislative power granted exclusively to Congress by the Constitution, the Court ruled. In the Court’s majority opinion, Justice John Paul Stevens wrote: “There is no provision in the Constitution that authorizes the president to enact, to amend or to repeal statutes.”

The court also held that the line-item veto violated the principles of the separation of powers between the legislative, executive, and judicial branches of the federal government. In his concurring opinion, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote that the “undeniable effects” of the line-item veto were to “enhance the President’s power to reward one group and punish another, to help one set of taxpayers and hurt another, to favor one State and ignore another.”

https://www.thoughtco.com/presidents-cannot-have-line-item-veto-3322132