Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
BCM
User Panel

Posted: 10/22/2014 7:18:51 AM EDT
I have to know why.

When was it first used?
Link Posted: 10/22/2014 7:35:49 AM EDT
[#1]
I think only state executives have this power.  The US president does not.  States have plenary police powers, so they can do pretty much whatever they want, as long as it's not prohibited by the Constitution.  To my knowledge there is nothing in the constitution that prevents a state's governor from using a line item veto.
Link Posted: 10/22/2014 7:40:58 AM EDT
[#2]
The United States Constitution makes no provision for the President to veto a portion of a bill.
See Article I Section 7 Paragraph 2.
Link Posted: 10/22/2014 7:42:40 AM EDT
[#3]

Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:


The United States Constitution makes no provision for the President to veto a portion of a bill.

See Article I Section 7 Paragraph 2.
View Quote




 
This.




It is all or nothing.
Link Posted: 10/22/2014 7:44:24 AM EDT
[#4]
The closest thing a POTUS has is a "pocket veto" for a whole Bill but Congress usually keeps folks around to receive veto communication during adjournment  so the POTUS can't do it.
Link Posted: 10/22/2014 7:45:52 AM EDT
[#5]
Congress passes a bill the POTUS signs or doesn't sign the bill into law. There is no circumventing the will of congress by changing what they pass.
Link Posted: 10/22/2014 7:47:21 AM EDT
[#6]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Congress passes a bill the POTUS signs or doesn't sign the bill into law. There is no circumventing the will of congress by changing what they pass.
View Quote


Lol, that was the old days.

Link Posted: 10/22/2014 7:50:32 AM EDT
[#7]
Because it is another check on the already too powerful office of the President.

He can take the whole bill as it stands or not, but he can't cherry pick the parts he likes.

When Republicans were able to get the 10 year expiration date attached to the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban, did you really want Clinton to have the power to veto that line item from the bill?
Link Posted: 10/22/2014 7:53:35 AM EDT
[#8]

Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:





 
This.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:



Quoted:

The United States Constitution makes no provision for the President to veto a portion of a bill.

See Article I Section 7 Paragraph 2.


 
This.




It is all or nothing.
/thread

 
Link Posted: 10/22/2014 8:00:20 AM EDT
[#9]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:

  This.

It is all or nothing.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Quoted:
The United States Constitution makes no provision for the President to veto a portion of a bill.
See Article I Section 7 Paragraph 2.

  This.

It is all or nothing.

If I'm not mistaken the ability to put a rider on a bill was not implemented until some time after the Constitution was written.

And frankly, all laws should be one per bill anyway.  The system was designed to be in a state of gridlock (though it wasn't called that) the majority of the time.  It's supposed to be difficult to pass a new law.
Link Posted: 10/22/2014 8:01:58 AM EDT
[#10]
Because the cancellation procedures violate the Presentment Clause of the Constitution. It's simply an unConstitutional transfer of power of legislative interpretation/duties from Congress to the President. Imagine Obama with the power to control individual representatives and senators by threatening to veto their local spending allocations to get their votes? Dangerous stuff.
Link Posted: 10/22/2014 8:07:50 AM EDT
[#11]
I'm not normally fond of grammar Nazis but Fuck, when a word in the title is as butchered as yours is,
just saying.
Link Posted: 10/22/2014 8:08:59 AM EDT
[#12]
The system can work with the right President; when they veto the bill it goes back to committee, and they have to trim some pork when they know they won't get a override majority.
Link Posted: 10/22/2014 8:11:16 AM EDT
[#13]
Separation of powers.  Congress writes the laws.  The President doesn't get to rewrite them.

Quoted:
The closest thing a POTUS has is a "pocket veto" for a whole Bill but Congress usually keeps folks around to receive veto communication during adjournment  so the POTUS can't do it.
View Quote


No. A pocket veto is when the President neither signs nor vetoes a bill prior to Congress going out of session. The bill dies on the President's desk, but the President didn't use the veto power.
Link Posted: 10/22/2014 8:14:05 AM EDT
[#14]
I use to support the idea of the line item veto.  Then i finally understood how it could turn out to be bad.

Power is only good when your side is in charge.
Link Posted: 10/22/2014 8:27:17 AM EDT
[#15]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Separation of powers.  Congress writes the laws.  The President doesn't get to rewrite them.



No. A pocket veto is when the President neither signs nor vetoes a bill prior to Congress going out of session. The bill dies on the President's desk, but the President didn't use the veto power.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Separation of powers.  Congress writes the laws.  The President doesn't get to rewrite them.

Quoted:
The closest thing a POTUS has is a "pocket veto" for a whole Bill but Congress usually keeps folks around to receive veto communication during adjournment  so the POTUS can't do it.


No. A pocket veto is when the President neither signs nor vetoes a bill prior to Congress going out of session. The bill dies on the President's desk, but the President didn't use the veto power.


True in theory but negative in practice.....Congress has prevented the pocket veto for decades by delegating a Reprehensive (s) to receive veto communication from the POTUS even during a adjournment.

A POTUS can't simply sit on a Bill during a adjournment anymore. He has 10 days (excluding Sunday) to send the Bill back either approved or vetoed as long as a representative is there to receive it.

If for some reason there is no rep. to receive it then the Bill does not become law.
Link Posted: 10/22/2014 8:32:20 AM EDT
[#16]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:


True in theory but negative in practice.....Congress has prevented the pocket veto for decades by delegating a Reprehensive (s) to receive veto communication from the POTUS even during a adjournment.

A POTUS can't simply sit on a Bill during a adjournment anymore. He has 10 days (excluding Sunday) to send the Bill back either approved or vetoed as long as a representative is there to receive it.

If for some reason there is no rep. to receive it then the Bill does not become law.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Quoted:
Separation of powers.  Congress writes the laws.  The President doesn't get to rewrite them.

Quoted:
The closest thing a POTUS has is a "pocket veto" for a whole Bill but Congress usually keeps folks around to receive veto communication during adjournment  so the POTUS can't do it.


No. A pocket veto is when the President neither signs nor vetoes a bill prior to Congress going out of session. The bill dies on the President's desk, but the President didn't use the veto power.


True in theory but negative in practice.....Congress has prevented the pocket veto for decades by delegating a Reprehensive (s) to receive veto communication from the POTUS even during a adjournment.

A POTUS can't simply sit on a Bill during a adjournment anymore. He has 10 days (excluding Sunday) to send the Bill back either approved or vetoed as long as a representative is there to receive it.

If for some reason there is no rep. to receive it then the Bill does not become law.


Regardless of it's efficacy, a pocket veto is nothing like a line item veto.
Link Posted: 10/22/2014 8:52:10 AM EDT
[#17]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Because it is another check on the already too powerful office of the President.

He can take the whole bill as it stands or not, but he can't cherry pick the parts he likes.

When Republicans were able to get the 10 year expiration date attached to the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban, did you really want Clinton to have the power to veto that line item from the bill?
View Quote


This is probably the easiest way to understand the issue.
Link Posted: 10/22/2014 11:44:37 AM EDT
[#18]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
The United States Constitution makes no provision for the President to veto a portion of a bill.
See Article I Section 7 Paragraph 2.
View Quote

Correct.  This is the "Presentment Clause" of the Constitution.  The line item veto was litigated and the Supreme Court held in the 1998 case of Clinton v. City of New York that it was unconstitutional as a violation of the presentment clause.  See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinton_v._City_of_New_York
Link Posted: 10/22/2014 11:46:21 AM EDT
[#19]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
The United States Constitution makes no provision for the President to veto a portion of a bill.
See Article I Section 7 Paragraph 2.
View Quote

What he said.
Close Join Our Mail List to Stay Up To Date! Win a FREE Membership!

Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!

You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.


By signing up you agree to our User Agreement. *Must have a registered ARFCOM account to win.
Top Top