>>It doesn't mean that much really -- if congress wanted to pass it regardless, they could. Veto power can be over-ruled. If he vetoes a bill, the bill goes back to the house and the senate and the veto can be over-ruled by two-thirds vote in each. So, if they really wanted to, they could still pass the bill but the bill would require a lot of support by both houses in order to pass by two-thirds vote the 2nd time around.
>
>But then, if they do that, the public will know that the Congress has openly declared its love for earmarks, and stood behind it.
They already do:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21691324/ns/politics-capitol_hill/
.·*´¨)
.·`TCH
(..·*
010000110101001101101000011000010111001001110000010011110111001001000010011101010111001101110100
"When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser." - Socrates
Vita contingit, Vive cum eo. (Life Happens, Live With it.)
"Life is not measured by the number of breaths we take, but by the moments that take our breath away." -- author unknown
"De omnibus dubitandum"
