Line item veto for the president, Why not????

Site Notices

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Line item veto for the president, Why not????

Posted: 4/10/2006 10:16:33 PM EDT

Line item veto for the president, Why not????

I know a line item veto might be seen as going against checks and balances, but specificlly why was it left out of the constitution and law? Would it be that much a threat to the houses?

Your thought on line item veto power either way as well please. I think if given power should be temporary.

Posted: 4/10/2006 10:17:32 PM EDT

[#1]

monarch like powers were frowned upon by the founding fathers mmmkay?

Posted: 4/10/2006 10:19:15 PM EDT

[#2]

Because that is too much power for a president to have. He would be able to hand select his own legislation and circumvent the work and votes of over 500 members of congress.

Posted: 4/10/2006 10:21:43 PM EDT

[#3]

Quoted:
Because that is too much power for a president to have. He would be able to hand select his own legislation and circumvent the work and votes of over 500 members of congress.

Congress can circumvent a veto if it is that important. I', not advocating it just curious. It would be useful versus pork spending though.

Posted: 4/10/2006 10:32:48 PM EDT

[#4]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Because that is too much power for a president to have. He would be able to hand select his own legislation and circumvent the work and votes of over 500 members of congress.

Congress can circumvent a veto if it is that important. I', not advocating it just curious. It would be useful versus pork spending though.

If it would be that way then the president might as well be able to draft and introduce legislation for congress to vote on.

We didn't vote the president, a single man, to overwhelmingly control our legislature.

Posted: 4/10/2006 10:39:45 PM EDT

[#5]

Quoted:

If it would be that way then the president might as well be able to draft and introduce legislation for congress to vote on.

I thought he did have that ability.

Posted: 4/10/2006 11:36:42 PM EDT

[#6]

Quoted:
Quoted:

If it would be that way then the president might as well be able to draft and introduce legislation for congress to vote on.

I thought he did have that ability.

You thought wrong. The president usually gets what he wants so if he asks a congressman to introduce a certain thing he can usually find someone willing to do it, but the president does not have the power to start a bill through either of the congressonal houses.

I completely support the idea of line item veto. Regan wanted it, as did Clinton. Clinton even used it before SCOTUS shot him down.

It'd take a constitutional amendment at this point so it'll never happen. Kinda like term limits for congressman, congress isn't going to approve an amendment that helps regulate their power. Just one of the faults in our constitution.

Posted: 4/10/2006 11:56:33 PM EDT

[#7]

Because you don't want the president line-item vetoing the bit about pre-ban rifles being good to go when the next federal AWB hits, that's why.

Granting more power to the guy (supposedly) on your side is lots of fun, until the next guy that's not on your side has that power.

Posted: 4/10/2006 11:58:59 PM EDT

[#8]

I think the solution to that would be to send the bill back to the congress for a simple majority on the bill. If they're willing to pass it a 2nd time with the Pres's modifications, he can sign it then just like the system we have now.

Allowing him to veto certain sections and it become law in, "His" modified form is unacceptable, however, remember, the Congress can repeal any law they've passed as well.

The president then has the option to say, "I'll approve 1/2 of X, but not the other half. You either pass 1/2 of X and present it to me for my signature, get a 2/3 majority, or shove the whole bill in your ass, whichever, I don't care."

I'd also support that any law that passes with a veto proof majority should not even reach the president's desk for signature or veto.

Line item veto could have solve the problems with the FOPA of 1986 when Regan was in office, just remember that. Even with a libtard controlled congress, there was hope at that time with line item veto. Without it, we're stuck with the ban of 1986 that many of us are very familiar with and the effect it has had on MG prices.

This president wouldn't know what to do with line item veto anyway. He doesn't VETO anything, he just threatens. What makes anyone think line item veto would make a difference?

Posted: 4/11/2006 7:17:23 AM EDT

[#9]

Quoted:
Line item veto could have solve the problems with the FOPA of 1986 when Regan was in office, just remember that. Even with a libtard controlled congress, there was hope at that time with line item veto. Without it, we're stuck with the ban of 1986 that many of us are very familiar with and the effect it has had on MG prices.

And it would've wiped out the sunset and pre-ban provisions of the Federal AWB when Clinton was in office.

Posted: 4/11/2006 7:22:28 AM EDT

[#10]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Line item veto could have solve the problems with the FOPA of 1986 when Regan was in office, just remember that. Even with a libtard controlled congress, there was hope at that time with line item veto. Without it, we're stuck with the ban of 1986 that many of us are very familiar with and the effect it has had on MG prices.

And it would've wiped out the sunset and pre-ban provisions of the Federal AWB when Clinton was in office.

Totally false. There is no way that the AWB would have passed even a simple majority the first time without a sunset provision.

Congressman are notorious about being undisciplined and not toeing the party line.

Posted: 4/11/2006 7:23:14 AM EDT

[#11]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Line item veto could have solve the problems with the FOPA of 1986 when Regan was in office, just remember that. Even with a libtard controlled congress, there was hope at that time with line item veto. Without it, we're stuck with the ban of 1986 that many of us are very familiar with and the effect it has had on MG prices.

And it would've wiped out the sunset and pre-ban provisions of the Federal AWB when Clinton was in office.

Totally false. There is no way that the AWB would have passed the first time without a sunset provision.

That's the problem with a line-item veto.

It can pass and then be modified.

Posted: 4/11/2006 7:28:49 AM EDT

[#12]

Quoted:

This president wouldn't know what to do with line item veto anyway. He doesn't VETO anything, he just threatens. What makes anyone think line item veto would make a difference?

+1

Posted: 4/11/2006 8:10:37 AM EDT

[#13]

Quoted:
Quoted:

I thought he did have that ability.

You thought wrong.

I have read a couple of articles in the past that assert that the President possesses the power to use a line item veto. If a president elected to use that power there would certainly be a legal challenge and the issue would fall to the courts. Most presidents are not likely to risk being overruled in court and have not chosen to attempt to exercise this power although they have batted around the idea of enumerating this power by law. Congress, of course, is rather cool to the idea regardless of party, because it cedes power to the executive branch.

I echo the sentiment of others regarding President Bush: it would be nice to see him exercise his existing veto power before allotting additional powers in that vein.

Posted: 4/11/2006 10:59:36 AM EDT

[#14]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Line item veto could have solve the problems with the FOPA of 1986 when Regan was in office, just remember that. Even with a libtard controlled congress, there was hope at that time with line item veto. Without it, we're stuck with the ban of 1986 that many of us are very familiar with and the effect it has had on MG prices.

And it would've wiped out the sunset and pre-ban provisions of the Federal AWB when Clinton was in office.

Totally false. There is no way that the AWB would have passed the first time without a sunset provision.

That's the problem with a line-item veto.

It can pass and then be modified.

Not if it was sent back for a simple majority to the Congress...

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:

I thought he did have that ability.

You thought wrong.

I have read a couple of articles in the past that assert that the President possesses the power to use a line item veto. If a president elected to use that power there would certainly be a legal challenge and the issue would fall to the courts. Most presidents are not likely to risk being overruled in court and have not chosen to attempt to exercise this power although they have batted around the idea of enumerating this power by law. Congress, of course, is rather cool to the idea regardless of party, because it cedes power to the executive branch.

I echo the sentiment of others regarding President Bush: it would be nice to see him exercise his existing veto power before allotting additional powers in that vein.

Clinton tried it and was challenged, and failed in court.

Posted: 4/11/2006 11:05:52 AM EDT

[#15]

Line item Veto power allows the President to make legislation and then Congress has to override it. It goes completely in the face of the separation of powers and the checks and balances designed into the system.

More appropriate would be an amendment to mandate single issue legislation with no piggy backing. In other words, you can't hide a gun control bill in an income tax proposal, or a tax in something else. Each bill must do exactly what its title states and only what its title states.

Most congressmen and pundits are opposed to single issue because it would hinder the "deal making" that greases the wheels of congress. While I am not too concerned with congress being hindered (I like slow, small government), the real longer term result would be that every issue would be public, alliances very clear, and reps would have to be honest and loyal or never get anything passed. Works for me.

Posted: 4/11/2006 11:16:24 AM EDT

[#16]

Quoted:
Line item Veto power allows the President to make legislation and then Congress has to override it. It goes completely in the face of the separation of powers and the checks and balances designed into the system.

More appropriate would be an amendment to mandate single issue legislation with no piggy backing. In other words, you can't hide a gun control bill in an income tax proposal, or a tax in something else. Each bill must do exactly what its title states and only what its title states.

Most congressmen and pundits are opposed to single issue because it would hinder the "deal making" that greases the wheels of congress. While I am not too concerned with congress being hindered (I like slow, small government), the real longer term result would be that every issue would be public, alliances very clear, and reps would have to be honest and loyal or never get anything passed. Works for me.

That there is the simplest solution. It is also the same reason it will never happen.

Posted: 4/11/2006 11:20:11 AM EDT

[#17]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Line item Veto power allows the President to make legislation and then Congress has to override it. It goes completely in the face of the separation of powers and the checks and balances designed into the system.

More appropriate would be an amendment to mandate single issue legislation with no piggy backing. In other words, you can't hide a gun control bill in an income tax proposal, or a tax in something else. Each bill must do exactly what its title states and only what its title states.

Most congressmen and pundits are opposed to single issue because it would hinder the "deal making" that greases the wheels of congress. While I am not too concerned with congress being hindered (I like slow, small government), the real longer term result would be that every issue would be public, alliances very clear, and reps would have to be honest and loyal or never get anything passed. Works for me.

That there is the simplest solution. It is also the same reason it will never happen.

Yep. There's absolutely no way that, especially the senate, would ever give up their power to earmark.

Posted: 4/11/2006 11:22:50 AM EDT

[#18]

You do NOT want an executive with that kind of power.

Posted: 4/11/2006 11:26:48 AM EDT

[#19]

Quoted:
You do NOT want an executive with that kind of power.

He already has complete veto power. Line item veto does not increase executive power, it just makes it more convenient for him to express which parts of the bill that he specifically disagrees with.

If I was president right now, I'd just veto ANY legislation with an earmark. That's the solution. Any piece of legislation with an earmark must be vetoed. Congress would learn what is acceptable on my watch and what is not. Pork barrel spending/earmarks are totally unacceptable.

Hell at least Clinton had the balls to veto the budget.

Bush won't veto anything.

Posted: 4/11/2006 11:33:27 AM EDT

[#20]

Quoted:
Quoted:
You do NOT want an executive with that kind of power.

He already has complete veto power. Line item veto does not increase executive power, it just makes it more convenient for him to express which parts of the bill that he specifically disagrees with.

If I was president right now, I'd just veto ANY legislation with an earmark. That's the solution. Any piece of legislation with an earmark must be vetoed. Congress would learn what is acceptable on my watch and what is not. Pork barrel spending/earmarks are totally unacceptable.

Hell at least Clinton had the balls to veto the budget.

Bush won't veto anything.

The president can veto what he doesn't like, and tell Congress to send it back without that line. If Congress doesn't want to, fuck him, thats the way it goes.

Posted: 4/11/2006 12:23:39 PM EDT

[#21]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
You do NOT want an executive with that kind of power.

He already has complete veto power. Line item veto does not increase executive power, it just makes it more convenient for him to express which parts of the bill that he specifically disagrees with.

If I was president right now, I'd just veto ANY legislation with an earmark. That's the solution. Any piece of legislation with an earmark must be vetoed. Congress would learn what is acceptable on my watch and what is not. Pork barrel spending/earmarks are totally unacceptable.

Hell at least Clinton had the balls to veto the budget.

Bush won't veto anything.

The president can veto what he doesn't like, and tell Congress to send it back without that line. If Congress doesn't want to, fuck him, thats the way it goes.

He can, but he doesn't.

Regan didn't even do it with the FOPA. The NRA told him not to veto it because they thought it was the lesser of evils to deal with the MG ban in exchange for the other provisions.

Posted: 4/11/2006 12:28:57 PM EDT

[#22]

Quoted:
Quoted:

This president wouldn't know what to do with line item veto anyway. He doesn't VETO anything, he just threatens. What makes anyone think line item veto would make a difference?

+1

++1

if we get LIV in during this adminsitration, we won't get our money's worth since it wont ever be used...

don't think there has ever ben a pres before bush that didna veto some things.. and i wish to hell he would get up and make like a leader on this illegal alien thing.... i want my money back.. a refund. i aint getting what i paid for...

Posted: 4/11/2006 12:39:17 PM EDT

[#23]

Quoted:
i want my money back.. a refund. i aint getting what i paid for...

That's what happens every time you vote for a major party candidate, and the same people are the ones to tell me that I'm wasting my vote.

Posted: 4/11/2006 12:51:47 PM EDT

[#24]

Because the Constitution say that the Congress legislates. Not the President.

Posted: 4/11/2006 12:59:55 PM EDT

[#25]

Quoted:
Because the Constitution say that the Congress legislates. Not the President.

And line item vetoing a bill and sending it back through congress for another try would do just that. Force them to legislate in such a way that the president was willing to put his signature on a bill, or choose to override his veto.

The constitution gave the POTUS veto power for a reason. Bush just doesn't use it as they intended.

Posted: 4/11/2006 1:56:06 PM EDT

[#26]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Because the Constitution say that the Congress legislates. Not the President.

And line item vetoing a bill and sending it back through congress for another try would do just that. Force them to legislate in such a way that the president was willing to put his signature on a bill, or choose to override his veto.

The constitution gave the POTUS veto power for a reason. Bush just doesn't use it as they intended.

Except the line item veto as it was weilded by Clinton did NOT have to be sent back to congress. That line-item veto allowed the President to veto the portions of the bill he did not like and THEN sign it into law, effectively circumventing the congress.

Theres nothing that says the President can't veto a bill and then tell the Congress what he thought was wrong with it. In fact, he should do that. He can do what you're talking about right now.

Posted: 4/11/2006 2:33:53 PM EDT

[#27]

It gives the President defacto legislative powers.

Posted: 4/11/2006 2:46:13 PM EDT

[#28]

Congress would just get pissed off and override whatever line-item vetos were implimented.