Does the President rubber stamp things like vetoes and funding allocations?
Sunday, August 29th, 2010 at
5:04 pm
He said that he has advisors bear a lot of the responsibilities around the House. Does he actually do a lot of reflecting on the stuff he signs (and doesn’t sign) or is it the ol’ rubber stamp?
Tagged with: rubber stamp • signs
Filed under: Rubber Stamps
Like this post? Subscribe to my RSS feed and get loads more!
Cheney tells Bush when and where to sign his name.
It’s the rubber stamp. His mind is made up before the bill reaches his desk.
A veto is hardly a rubber stamp. A veto is his override of congress and does not happen very often.
his whole campaign has been based on VETO everything, so YES ol rubber stamp, among OTHER unmentionables…would be HIM
He can’t rubber-stamp a veto; he’s the only one with the authority to veto legislation. Funding allocations – for the most part, I would assume that any President relies heavily on his advisors to tell him how to handle those.
No rubber stamps allowed.
You wouldn’t believe the ammount of self serving political trash that comes to his desk.
If he let this stuff go you’r taxes would be out of sight,trying to pay for it all.
Good and needed bills get swamped with add on garbage that would never pass on it’s own.
The President has sole veto authority so rubber stamping isn’t anything close to an accurate term to use here. He has used his veto rather sparingly and he has told Congress that if they sent legislation to him that contained certain provisions he would veto it. The Congressional leaders didn’t attempt to negotiate a compromise, they tried to ram it down his throat and wasted a majority of their time crafting bills that had no hope of becoming law. The President doesn’t have to rubber stamp anything Congress sends to his desk. The result of the tactics this Congress has chosen is that the most important issues that they needed to address were ignored. They are now trying to blame their blunder on the President.