Immigration Bill faces Senates showdown

For many days, there has been a hot debate. Should we accept the immigration bill? The Senate’s legislation is trying hard to legalize unlawful immigrants. Wednesday’s compromise failed. On one side, the Republicans, wanting to deny illegal immigrants citizenship and the other side, the Democratic, wants to reunite legal immigrants with many of their family members. Different state senators propositions ranged from providing more green cards to requiring all of the adult immigrants to return to their home until they qualify for permanent lawful status. This bill would toughen border security and set up a new system for sifting through illegal aliens from their workplaces. Even now this bill is going through many transitions and compromises.

In my opinion this bill is important. Obviously, it will help our problems with the number of illegal aliens, but also help diminish our problems. Especially with health care, insurance, crime, overcrowding schools, drugs, etc. Overall, immigration will still be a challenge. People will somehow find loop holes in the system.

Immigration and Republicans

Mr. Austin, I was having trouble logging into the account. It was finished on time. I have an email sent to myself with a time if needed.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/politics/la-na-immig27jun27,1,997164.story?ctrack=2&cset=true

Regarding the bill proposed by the Republicans, Democrats are still either undecided or have switched their vote to the other side. The immigration bill would decide the fate of many immigrants living in the Unites States. The majority vote is for the bill to move into debate, but there is still a chance that enough votes can be gained for the bill to die off. Democrats are worried about the bill. They see the changes to the family based immigration system, border security regulations, and the workforce that many American companies use. Many efforts have been made to persuade individuals to change their votes, but most stand by their ultimate opinions. If the bill is passed it would make it much more difficult for illegal immigrants to be hired. It also calls for current immigrants to move back to their country until a new visa can be issued to them as citizens or temporary citizens. This bill needs to come to a "careful compromise" or it will drastically change immigrants lives in American.

My opinion regarding this article is that the Democrats need to urgently step-up their votes and fight for the bill not to move into debate. Immigrants have a substantial influence in both culture and economy. For example, in California many immigrants have made their living and success as the minimal wage workforce. American don't want immigrants here, but the question needed to be asked is if they want to do the jobs that these immigrants take under. The Republicans are using their power and pushing for this bill to move into debate by all means. The system of checks and balances is not working efficiently because unjust laws will be issued if members of the Democratic party don't decide fairly. The Republicans want a harsher and more severe bill, when there can be a alternative reached with more time and compromise. America is made up of immigrants and we need them here to keep both our economy, culture, and workforce going. I chose this article because my father's business has a large immigrant workforce. If this Republican bill is passed then many of my father's workers will be forced ro leave their jobs, which affects his business.

Bush Faces Eavesdropping Subpoena

After the 9/11 attacks, the government have been secretly monitoring overseas email and telephone communications of Americans suspected of ties to terrorist. The secret spying programme became public in 2005 and the president rejects claims that he broke the law by ordering surveillance without a warrant. The US Senate issued a subpoena ordering the White House to give up documents related to its surveillance of domestic terror suspects. However, the administration refuses the requests. The Senate Judiciary Committee’s subpoenas target the White House, Vice-President Dick Cheney, the National Security Council and the Department of Justice.

I think that this program is illegal. There is something called privacy and when the government taps into our email and telephone communications, it violates our individual rights.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6247404.stm

Oppositions within Bush's cabinet

President Bush’s administration is coming to a decision on whether or not to close Guantanamo Bay, in Cuba. Despite many opposition from some of Bush’s top aides, the President will consult with his cabinet including Vice President Cheney, Secretary of State Rice, and Defense Secretary Gates, and Attorney General Gonzalez, and others will be in discussing on this decision. President Bush, human rights experts, and many in Congress are in support of the closure. However, Vice President Cheney and the Justice Department have opposed this closing because “moving unlawful enemy combatant suspects to the U.S. would give them undeserved legal rights. ”Upon the final decision, this closure would help repair the mistakes the U.S. has made regarding this war against terrorism.
I feel that it is a good example of how different government officials disagree, especially when it involves the President and his vice president. It is interesting to see how this topic can divide cabinet members.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070622/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_guantanamo

Conn. Gov. Vetoes Medical Marijuana Bill

ARTICLE

This article is about Connecticut's governor, a cancer survivor, vetoing a bill that would have allowed people with certain serious illnesses to use marijuana. She said it was fraught with problems and sent a mixed message to children. The bill she vetoed would have allowed people older than 18 with medical conditions such as cancer, multiple sclerosis and AIDS to grow and use four marijuana plants after getting written permission from a doctor and registering with the state.

The issue pits broader patients' rights against concerns of legalized access to an illicit drug. Twelve states let some patients use marijuana despite federal laws against it.
"I think this is a big step backward," said Republican state Rep. Penny Bacchiochi, a widow who risked arrest more than 20 years ago to obtain marijuana for her husband while he struggled with bone cancer. A great example of its use is TV talk show host Montel Williams, diagnosed with multiple sclerosis in 1999, lobbied at the state Capitol in support of the bill. He said he uses marijuana to help alleviate the pain and debilitating symptoms.

This shows the Governer using her power even though Marijuana is beneficial and needed in many conditions. Many cancer or other disease affected citizens are depending on the drug to relieve their pain and she vetoed the legality of it. If this goes to the congress, it will be more than the Governer's decision as 2/3 of Congress needs to approve.

Bush vetoes bill aimed at promoting stem cell research

Bush vetoes a bill towards to promoting of stem cell resarch. This is the second time he has vetoed a stem cell bill. He vetoed similar embryonic stem cell legislation last July. Bush said, "If this legislation became law, it would compel American taxpayers for the first time in our history to support the deliberate destruction of human embryos. I made it clear to Congress and to the American people that I will not allow our nation to cross this moral line."

I think that Bush has explained his actions well, although I think cutting the funds to the research cause is harsh. This is a example of executive powers. He vetoes the bill and the senate doesn't have 2/3 of congress to overide the order.

New Ambassador's Appointment Deemed Acceptable

President Bush recently appointed a new ambassador to Belgium and his decision has caused a vocal response from Democratic senators. Sam Fox's new appointment was bound to be protested by the democrats from the start because of his participation in a project that is alleged to have damaged John Kerry's reputation during the 2004 presidential election. Bush's actions in appointing Fox did seem rather sketchy; he gave Fox the position while Congress was on recess. Despite democrat protests, the Government Accountability Office, a hand of Congress, said Fox can continue to serve in the diplomatic post but cannot draw a government salary because federal law prohibits payment for some recess appointments. Fox has agreed to work without pay.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070625/ap_on_go_ot/ambassador_swift_boat&printer=1;_ylt=Ao5yGVQE2EsrqQutwrzKhox2wPIE

This article shows the President's power to appoint certain members of the federal government but also show Congress' power to deny his appointments. In this particular case, Congress chose not to employ this power though it was their right to, because they didn't see the appointment as a violation. The GAO also had to consider federal laws in this case, which said that Fox couldn't receive a salary because of the circumstances of his appointment.

Senate Issues Subpoenas in Eavesdropping Investigation

"WASHINGTON, June 27 — The Senate Judiciary Committee issued a series of subpoenas to the White House, Vice President Cheney’s office". A committee has sent alot of notices to the Bush Administration. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/27/washington/27cnd-nsa.html?hp says that it is going to be a "major legal showdown between Congress and the Bush Administration." All the notices where about the NSA.

Supporters score victories in early votes on immigration amendments

Today in Washington the Senate rejected a change in the immigration bill that will barred illegal immigrants from being legal residents, on the way towards citizenship. In other news the Senate also defeated another amendment that would make illegal people in this country to return to their home country and re-enter the country in a legal way.

The voting will also take place on Thursday morning when the Senate will see whether there are 60 votes to end the debate. Senators voted 53-45 to defeat a measure by Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Texas) that would send all adult immigrants to return home within the two years of there "Z Visa".

In the end Senate is still debating weather or not to pass the law and to see if they have the sufficient amount of votes in order to pass the new immigration laws.

Bush will veto anti-torture law after Senate revolt

Article Summary:
A bill was passed by Congress that would ban the torturing of prisoners in Iraq as well as send 440 billion dollars to the war effort. The Bush administration said that they would veto the bill. Congress however was confident that they would have the two thirds vote needed to overturn the veto.

Thoughts:
This is an example of something that looks worse than it actually is. Most people look at it out of context an say "he vetoed a bill that outlawed torturing and giving money to our troops!" Unfortunately there are bills like this that he can't pass because even though the bill does have aspects you may agree with, there are other aspects you may not. In this case it was likely that the 440 billion dollars was to much but they can always amend the bill in congress.

No support for military from Bush

President Bush vetoed a bill which established a new time line for the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq. Bush stated that this was a bill which sided with the views of politicians at home rather than soldiers aboard.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18412464/

I do not agree with Bush's veto of a bill which would spend over 100 billion dollars supporting our soldier in Iraq. I believe that this was a poor choice, since he sent the soldier into the middle east in the first place. He should have allowed the soldiers to return home and allow the Iraqi government to take control of their own country.

Senate Kills Travel Requirements for Illegal Immigrants

On Wednesday June 27, 2007, the Senate shot down a proposal, created by Senator Hutchinson, that would require illegal immigrants to go home in order to qualify for permanent citizenship in the United States. This proposal would have caused 12 million illegal immigrants to become citizens of the U.S. pending background checks, fines, and fees. Conservatives believed it was too lenient toward illegal immigrants. Liberals felt it would destroy families and leave workers open to exploitation of employers. Senator Jim Webb believed that the return home proposal was unrealistic and impractical and should be shut down. Republican framers of this bill are proposing their own less burdensome requirement for illegal immigrants to drain any support of Hutchinson's amendment. Voting on amendments continues Wednesday afternoon to try to overcome conservative foes. There will be a critical test-vote bill this Thursday.

The issue of illegal immigration is one that I personally believe is not as important as other issues going on in the world. I think that the border should be more open to immigrants seeking citizenship. There is a history of immigration in this country being the country of immigrants. Who are we to say who can go through a process to become a citizen or not when we ourselves are not true native Americans besides those Native Americans. Though we are the ones who created the government of this country, I believe that for us to decide the fate of immigrants, we should go back and look at the way our own immigration into this country in history had occured. Maybe then can we decide on what do to that is fair to illegal immigrants and what their needs would be.

reasons for firing attorneys

Last year, eight U.S. attorneys were fired and during the middle of a term, which makes it pretty suspicious, since the president usually does so at the beginning of an office term. The Senate Judiciary Committee chairman then issued a subpoena to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales to try to get emails that Bush's top political adviser sent regarding the firings. He is accused of dismissing the attorneys on not going after Democrats on voter fraud charges or pursuing corruption charges on Republicans too much. The White House denies it.

This article is about the how the President might be abusing his power of being able to legally hire attorneys. He might be dismissing people based on his preferences. The other branches of government are trying to find out if it is true and check his power accordingly by investigating it and also requiring people to go to court. It is a good thing that the investigation is going on because it is not fair to others if the President is hiring people that would benefit him, and if it were allowed to go on, the country will be run by the President and his loyal supporters.

House, Senate pass war funding billHouse,



http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/05/24/iraq.funding/index.html


Summary: The bill spent 120 billion dollars on the war in iraq. Then George W. bush vetoed a phone call by troops in iraq to bring troops home earlier. It split the democratic majority in the white house. The republican party is at a loss and the democratic party has the majority. Some speakers believe the bill will help bring the four year war to an end.

It relates to the subject because the presint is veoing bills and signing them.


I chose this article because I thought it was interesting. And you can see how the government has the power to change society by signing bills.

THE BRYANT POST

The Article: http://www.heritage.org/Research/Immigration/wm1076.cfm


Summary: THis article is about the immagration bill brought upon to the senate. Basicly if this bil is passed it will allow 100 Million new immigrants to come into the United States through legal terms over the next 20 years. There is feirce compotition between the Dimocrats and the Republicans over if this bill will be allowed to pass.


I chose this article because is is a good example how the senate can exercise its power.

The Senate Judiciary Committee subpoenaed the White House and Vice President Dick Cheney's office Wednesday for documents relating to President Bush's warrant-free eavesdropping program.
Several senate members have been frustruated with the lack of compliance with their request for proper athourization and docuementation of there recent actions. The Senate committee demands documents related to warrantless eavesdropping. The white house has continued to engage in these actions with out proper approval.

This issue is not only a problem of the exective branch ignoring Congress requests, but one of concern, because the president is ease dropping with out authorization or docuementation. I think this is a sad example of how our checks and balances are not working how they are saposed to.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/06/27/wiretapping.subpoenas.ap/index.html

We have the balances but who took the checks?

While on vacation in Macedonia Khaled El-Masri was detained by the local authorities then transfered to U.S. authorities where in turn he was brutally tortured. Months later the CIA had discovered that the man they held hostage was not the man they were actually looking for. When El-Masri filed suit, the case was immediately dismissed on the count that there was no evidence, and the evidence they did have could not be viewed because it holds " state secretes". This is not the first time such a call was made. When the government has failed to do something justly and they are being called out on it they simply state that they can not disclose the evidence because of "state secrete privileges". Many cases have gone with out fair trial due to this loop hole in the constitution.

The problem here is not in the lack of evidence but in the lack of the judicial branch's use of their power in the system of checks and balances. The supreme court should instead of excepting executive claims judges can and should privately check and review the evidence that is under the claim of the privileges. The system of checks and balances depends on the judicial review of the executive branch actions. We need to limit the use of the " states secretes privilege" and restore independent judicial review.

Article

Senate Republicans block union bill

On Tuesday June 26, the republicans in the Senate blocked one of organized labor's top "legislative priority this year", a bill designed to make it easier for unions to organize workers at nonunion workplaces. The vote was split close between the republicans and democrats and resulted in a tallly of 51 - 48 leaving democrats 9 votes short of passing this bill. The union workers believe that this act creates a situation of the rich vs the common man.

I believe that this bill should have been passed in order to help the middle-wage man in the UThe bill would have required employers to recognize unions if more than half of eligible workers signed union cards. Under a law dating back 60 years, employers who are presented with union cards from a majority of their employees may demand an election by secret ballot — a procedure designed to prevent coercion of workers by unions. However I believe it was interesting to read about how close the Senate was in their votes. It was very close displaying the fact that any bill, if not obviously one-sided, could go either way.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-union27jun27,1,1603061.story?coll=la-headlines-nation

Veto or not to veto?

President Bush is threatening to use his power to veto government spending because he does not want to go back to the “days of the tax-and spend policies” era. Regarding Homeland Security, the House of Representatives okayed more than what was budgeted, but Bush was not willing to sign. The Democrats increased the funding for the war in Iraq, which was above the proposed budget. Many pet projects were included in the spending bills in which the President has asked his administration to disclose them by posting them on a website. Even Republicans are joining forces to get enough votes to overrule the President’s veto.
I believe that the President has the authority and power to veto any measures that he sees fit to do so because he is the president. Especially if these measures are over budget and sometimes unnecessary. I found this interesting because it showed how the President and those in office were at odds and had different opinions regarding many important issues and topics.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/06/16/bush.radio.ap/index.html

Veterans Affairs Funding Bill

Just recently Congress passed a bill that would help provide health-care benefits for veterans. This bill was threatened to be vetoed by President Bush. After much thinking, the President had decided to take back his threat and agreed to pass the bill through Congress. With the passing of this bill it has become the largest increase of health-care for veterans in American history. U.S. Rep. Chet Edwards states that, "The unprecedented $6billion increase for our veterans is all about respect, respect for the unselfish sacrifice of our troops and our veterans and their families. This veterans' bill is about keeping our promise to those who have kept their promise to defend our nation." He make a very good point here saying that helping the ones who have done so much for our country is a great thing because we are giving back the aid that they need now a days. With this bill in action there will be more doctors and nurses available, waiting for an appointment wouldn't take as long, and there will be 1,100 new VA case workers to help reduce the delays that veterans have been getting.

United states Senate Committee on the judiciary

United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary In today's government the need to use checks and balances to keep government data bases from being misused against the American people. The congress must make sure that our government uses technology correctly; this is to detect any illegal activity that the government does. Making sure that technology is used correctly will also protect our basic rights, and limit many ways that will limit the opportunities for the abuse of the tools.
Today many advances in technology is making data banks and data mining more useful and more powerful. Technology can be very useful tools but can also hurt many people. Technology isn't always the safest way to get information through, we need to use them properly and make sure that they are most affective.

Immigration Bill Passed!

After the Immigration reform collapsed on Capitol Hill, the Senate decided to revive the immigration bill. The bill was sent to the House of Representatives to vote, and the bill had passed from the votes of 64 to 35 (60 is the required votes to pass). The bill strictly states that illegal immigrants can not become a legal permanent resident and can't be employed for a job anywhere. In addition, employing illegal immigrants would lead to facing "increased penalties.

To some extent, I think that it's fair to bring out this bill and passing it. I say this because, in the first place, they aren't supposed to be here because they're "illegal," but the problem is, we need them. Illegal immigrants take the jobs that we don't do and help our economy grow stronger.

Checks and Balances not working?

The Washington Post talks about Vice President Cheney stating that "it's clearer than ever that one thing missing from Cheney's worldview is any appreciation for checks and balances -- not just among the three branches of government, but also within his own."

So basically to sumarize ... the article talks about how Cheney has been passing a bunch of policies and Bush has just been signing it. So there isn't really a system of checks and balances right now since no one is checking up on Cheney or checking on his actions. No one is really making sure that he isn't overpowering anyone, when in fact, he practically is overpowering Bush, who is obviously of a higher rank than him. Cheney is getting what he wants because "whatever he puts in front of Bush, Bush just signs." I think that this isn't right because Cheney shouldn't just be allowed to receive everything he wants especially when it comes to policies that citizens have to adapt to. If our government really uses the system of checks and balances, then this is definitely not an example of how checks and balances work, nor should it be allowed.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/blog/2007/06/25/BL2007062500874.html

Current Event: Bush passes Veteren's Bill

This article talks of how President Bush passed the veterens' bill, which gives $64.7 bill to support the Veterens' affairs. Although The Bush administration threatened to veto the law it was passed, the threat was not followed through. While there was an increase in the budget for the veterens in recent years, the article states that it was not enough to keep up with the costs especially after the war in Iraq. Due to the new bill passed by congress the lines to see doctors and nurses will be shorter, more doctors and nurses will be employed, and 1,000 new VA case workers to process benfit claims. The bill was passed last week by 409-2.

I believe that this bill is neccessary in order to keep up with the injured soldiers in Iraq because due to the war there are many injuries. This new increase in the budget for the veterens will give access to medical and mental healthcare much more easily to soldiers.

PLEASE READ!!

Some hints on posting:

1. Do not include giant quotes from the article - just summarize.
2. Give your post a real title that gives the reader an idea about the subject of your article.
3. Only post articles with summaries - not random comments.
4. Keep it brief - 2 paragraphs!
5. See my sample.
6. spellcheck and edit!!
7. Please do not use your actual name for your display name - change ASAP!

High court ends ban on corporate-funded campaign ads

WASHINGTON -- (Mr. Austin's note: Please re-do using your own words)

Immigration

Frustrated with Congress's inability to pass an immigration overhaul bill, state legislatures are considering or enacting a record number of strongly worded proposals targeting illegal immigrants.
By the time most legislatures adjourned in May, at least 1,100 immigration bills had been submitted by lawmakers, more than double last year's record total, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. This year's total is expected to grow as the issue continues to dominate debate in statehouses still in session.

These laws limit illegal immigrants' ability to obtain jobs, find housing, get driver's licenses and receive many government services. They also empower state law enforcement agencies to inquire into an immigrant's legal status and hold for deportation those deemed to be here illegally. The idea is to make life so difficult for illegal immigrants that they will leave the state -- if not the country.

Bush vetoes war funding bill, but fight isn’t over

(Mr. Austin's note: Please DO NOT post the entire text of the article - see my sample)

URL: http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/18424299/

-------------------------------------------------------

On May 1, 2007, President Bush vetoed a bill that would aim to have all of the American troops in Iraq out by April 2008. The bill, which would have given $124 million for war efforts, would have given the troops the resources they needed to get out of the Middle East within a year.
The President's decision has sparked an angry exchange of thoughts between the Democrats and Republicans. The Republicans stated that if the bill were to pass, the war would be lost. Democrats believe that by vetoing the bill, the soldiers are denied essentials to pull out.

-------------------------------------------------------

I chose this article as an example of the executive branch using its power against the legislature.

I disagree with Bush's plan to keep troops in Iraq. The money that is being speant daily on the war could be used for education, setting up social programs to get the homeless off of the street, and for making sure that the people here, in America, are getting the healthcare that they need.
By drawing out this war, President Bush is losing sight on what is really important.

Ashley

As we have already seen our Constitution is very much a reaction to the events that came before it. Our founding fathers had several goals, foremost among those goals was to avoid tyranny. In order to do this several different systems were set up to prevent the abuse of power. Federalism was one of these systems. Federalism was designed to balance the power of the national and State governments and thus limit the powers of the national government. Jefferson and others were convinced that state government was closer to the people and thus more democratic.
Another system that was developed was the system of checks and balances. Checks and balances, or the separation of powers, is based upon the philosophy of Baron de Montesquieau. In this system the government was to be divided into three branches of government, each branch having particular powers.
Legislative Branch
Makes the laws
Executive Branch
Enforces and carries out the laws.
Judicial Branch
Interprets the laws Not only does each branch of the government have particular powers each branch has certain powers over the other branchs. This is done to keep them balanced and to prevent one branch form ever gaining too much power. For example:
Congress may pass laws........but the President can veto them.
The President can veto laws.......but Congress can override the veto with a 2/3 vote.
The President and Congreess may agree on a law..........but the Supreme Court can declare a law unconsitutional.
The President can appoint Judges and other government officials.......but Senate must approve them.
Supreme Court judges have life terms.......but they can be impeached .
As you can see there are many ways (there are many more than listed) that the Constitution balances power. Real life conflicts that test the system have occured throughout history. These checks and balances are used on a regular basis.
After the Civil War President Andrew Johnson vetoed over 20 bills.
After the Civil War Congress overrode overrode over 20 Presidential vetoes!
In1987 President Ronald Reagan appointed Judge Robert Bork to the Supreme Court, his nomination was defeated.
In 1935 and 1936 the Supreme Court declared the NIRA and then the AAA (two New Deal programs passed during the Roosevelt administration) unconstitutional.
In 1918 Congress refused to ratify the Treaty of Versailles, a peace treaty ending World War I that President Wilson had worked very hard on.
There are thousands of examples of checks and balances at work. As we continue this year we will examine these and many more.

I chose this because it is very clear to understand about checks and balances. The summary is just dfefining what checks and balances are and how they are used in our government. Its pretty short and I found it informative so please post.

Bush Shuns Patriot Act Requirment

So basically, the President has to reathorize certain ACTs every year, and the Patriot Act is one of them. Apparently after the public reathorization of the ACT, the president layed out a new provision with his own interpretation of the law. The Patriot Act provides some say "checks and balances" so that the FBI did not abuse extended powers appointed by them for terror riden times (terrorist hunting). The provisions require Justice Department Officials to keep closer track of how often the FBI uses these new powers. But in the statement, Bush said that he did not consider himself bound to tell Congress how the Patriot Act powers were being used and that, despite the law's requirements, he could withhold the information if he decided that disclosure would ''impair foreign relations, national security, the deliberative process of the executive, or the performance of the executive's constitutional duties.The statement represented the latest in a string of high-profile instances in which Bush has cited his constitutional authority to bypass a law." After Bush was confronted about his authorization of the military to conduct servaillance on American's international phone calls and emails without a warranrt, Bush stated that wartime powers gave him the authority to ignore the warrant law. "And when Congress passed a law forbidding the torture of any detainee in US custody, Bush signed the bill but issued a signing statement declaring that he could bypass the law if he believed using harsh interrogation techniques was necessary to protect national security."
In this case, the president is attempting to bypass the Judicial and Legislative branch thus the system of checks and balances is in jeopardy. Patriot Act

Veterans Affair Spending Bill

A bill past that was very close to not passsing due to Congressman Chet Edwards, who for weeks threatend to veto a bill that would help war vetreans wiht brain injuries, mental health problems, and amputations. The White House claims that it was almost vetoed because the spending bill exceeded Bush's spending request. The bill was actually for $3.8 billion more than Bush had requested, $60.9 billion.
One reason why the bill most likely passed is because congress made it clear that they would override the veto. The Veterans Affair spending bill passed last week, 409 - 2.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I chose this article because it demonstrated some of the ways a bill can be passed or vetoed, not just by the president or by congress. It shows what kind of power branches of the government have andcontains some reasoning on to why a bill maybe vetoed by a certain office.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I disagree with those who wanted to veto the bill because even though it would spend a lot on just war veterans, it would get them the help that they most likely really need. With the war in Iraq it help many of the new veterans of war who may suffer mental instablilties, such as shell shock, and get those people help. It would also reduce their waiting times for these same vetrans to be able to get in and see a doctor, and also pay for 1,100 new VA case workers to process benefit claims, which would help those who made the claims get their benefits in a shorteer amount of time.

This week's theme - June 25rd-June 29th

The theme for this week is: checks and balances OR branches using their powers.

Look for articles that show checks and balances being used in the government. In the sample that I posted the president used a veto that the Congress could not override.

If you have trouble with that theme, look for articles where a branch of government is using one of their major powers. The only limit is that I do not want articles about Congress passing laws because that is the theme for next week.

Sample Article

In July of last year, President Bush vetoed a stem cell research bill that would have eased restrictions against funding programs that used stem cells from embryos created for in vitro fertilization but were not used. The President said that the bill "would support the taking of innocent human life in the hope of finding medical benefits for others," and that "It crosses a moral boundary that our decent society needs to respect." This was the first time that Bush used a veto during his term as president. Although Congress had more than enough votes to pass the bill, neither house had the necessary 2/3 majority to override the veto.

This has always been a tough issue for me. I won't get into where I stand on stem cell research, but it does make me think about when a veto should be used. In this case, who really should be relied on to measure the moral compass of the nation? The Presidents is elected by the entire nation, whose religious, ethic, moral, and political beliefs spread across the entire spectrum. The members of Congress are elected by a smaller sample, taken only from their states. Shouldn't they know where their constituents stand on an issue? I may not have an answer to this question.