Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 3/6/2006 6:57:42 AM EDT
With the way the politics is today and all the back room deals that have are made just to things to pass should the President be given the power to go in and cut whatever he wants? The plus side would be if the President supports everything you want then it gives you more power but if he doesn't it throws a wrench into the whole thing and upsets the balance of power between the President and Congress. Personally I don't think the President should have any more power, it's not his job to make the laws. Giving him the line item veto would allow him to basically go back and redo the law by removing things he doesn't like. That's the job of Congress.

On top of that Bush is too full of himself already and definately doesn't need anymore power. On several occasions the Republican legislators have gone one direction but Bush has gone another saying "I know I'm right and I'm going to continue doing things my way." Bush is supposed to be on our side and yet he has that type of mentallity. Could you imagine Hillary Clinton as President with that type of power?
Link Posted: 3/6/2006 6:59:37 AM EDT
What does the US Constitution say?
Link Posted: 3/6/2006 7:00:28 AM EDT
Yes.

This could get rid of some of the bitter pill ammendments that get through. Plus the balance of power wouldn't change as Congress could still override the veto.

IMHO: Bills should be limited to a single subject, no more adding completely unrelated items to the highway bill.
Link Posted: 3/6/2006 7:03:26 AM EDT
As long as BS pork can get thrown on almost any bill, ABSO-Frickin-LUTELY.

Subject to congressional override of course*. (*Consitutional clause.)
Link Posted: 3/6/2006 7:03:51 AM EDT
Line item veto is a HELL of alot of power, but, OTOH
it would stop people from getting mileage out of a bill
called somthing like..."Safe Puppies, Kitties, and, Babies Act"

The SPaKA....(Who DOESN'T want safe puppies, kitties and, babies?)
would gain momentum just by it's name. Now along the way, it gets
various sundry things that have nothing to do with Kitties, puppies OR
babies along the way.

The POTUS could then glean out what he didn't like and, then pass the
bill.....

Boy....It would sure break up gridlock, but, I'm not sure I trust any one man with
that kind of power.
Link Posted: 3/6/2006 7:04:21 AM EDT
No.
Think about how Clinton would have used it, he could have veto'ed the sunset provision in the '94 ban and signed the rest.

Kharn
Link Posted: 3/6/2006 7:05:58 AM EDT

Originally Posted By warlord:
What does the US Constitution say?



Every bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a law, be presented to the President of the United States; if he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the objections at large on their journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the bill, it shall be sent, together with the objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a law.

There's the important part. I don't see how the President saying "I object to these parts" would be unconstitutional.
Link Posted: 3/6/2006 7:08:07 AM EDT
Does it even matter if W has this power, I don't think he has a VETO pen...
Link Posted: 3/6/2006 7:08:36 AM EDT
According to what I've read today, the news makes it sound like it would only be applicable to spending and tax bills.

If it's not limited, then my feelings would be doubling Kharn's about the sunset provision.

As to whether or not it will be limited, the proposed legislation has yet to be written.

What did Clinton's line item veto bill say? That one was passed, then deemed unconsitutional.
Link Posted: 3/6/2006 7:11:35 AM EDT

One year's experience with the line item veto taught us all an important lesson: the line item veto works. In 1997 President Clinton used this new veto 82 times to delete unnecessary expenditures in 11 spending bills. The savings to taxpayers total nearly $2 billion over five years. True, in a $1.75 trillion annual budget, this is not a huge sum. But even by Washington standards, $2 billion is still real money -- and a whole lot of pork.

None of these vetoed projects served the national interest. Clinton wielded the veto to eliminate funding for a $600,000 solar aquatic wastewater treatment demonstration project in Vermont; a $2 million Chena River dredging project in Fairbanks, Alaska, to benefit a single tour boat operator; a $1 million corporate welfare grant to the Carter County Montana Chamber of Commerce; $900,000 for a Veterans Administration cemetery the VA says it doesn't need; $1.9 million for dredging a Mississippi lake that primarily serves yachts and pleasure boats; $500,000 for the Neabsco Creek Project in Virginia for removal of creek debris; and other such absurdities.

As the list below shows, pork is still being served in great quantities and large servings in Washington these days.

The tragedy of the Supreme Court's decision is that the most recent spending bill enacted by Congress, the 1998 Highway Bill, is a monument to the need for a line item veto. This roads bill contains a record 1,500 pork projects. That's 3 slabs of bacon for every congressional district. These "demonstration projects" include such necessities as bike paths, hiking trails, auto museums, parking garages and wasteful mass transit projects. More than $5 billion could have been saved on this bill alone with the line item veto.



CATO Institute, 1998
Link Posted: 3/6/2006 7:13:19 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/6/2006 7:17:24 AM EDT by Grunteled]
Unless the new bill goes back to Congress to be voted on in it's form after the line-item veto then I say no. The President should not be able to rewrite the laws passed by the people's representatives and then sign it into law. I would not ever support that. Think about the ramifications to our side as well before you start cheering for it. Even with the reconsidereation of the bill it would be a lot of power placed in the presidents hands.

I'm not informed enough to know if that is a constitutional issue.


[On second thought I suppose it would have to back to congress for at least an override oppertunity anyway]

ETA: Limited to appropriation and spending bills I would feel more comfortable with it.
Link Posted: 3/6/2006 7:13:24 AM EDT

Originally Posted By warlord:
What does the US Constitution say?



Right now it says no. (According to the Supreme Court)

A Constitutional ammendment would be necessary.

A line-item veto would dramatically increase the power of the executive.

That can be a blessing and a curse, depending on who is wielding power.
Link Posted: 3/6/2006 7:13:55 AM EDT

Originally Posted By SmilingBandit:
Yes.

This could get rid of some of the bitter pill ammendments that get through. Plus the balance of power wouldn't change as Congress could still override the veto.

IMHO: Bills should be limited to a single subject, no more adding completely unrelated items to the highway bill.



Oh yes it would.
Link Posted: 3/6/2006 7:14:09 AM EDT

Originally Posted By SmilingBandit:

Originally Posted By warlord:
What does the US Constitution say?



Every bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a law, be presented to the President of the United States; if he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the objections at large on their journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the bill, it shall be sent, together with the objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a law.

There's the important part. I don't see how the President saying "I object to these parts" would be unconstitutional.



He returns it with his objections, not "signs it with his objections".

All or nothing, the way The Constitution says.
Sign it or return it.
The President does not write the law, he signs bills into law.
Link Posted: 3/6/2006 7:16:19 AM EDT
The president, IIRC Clinton, had it for a minute before Congress took it from him. They said, actually Monghanhan said, "In America we dont have kings!"

It's a big tread on Congress, the line-item veto. They dont want it.
Link Posted: 3/6/2006 7:17:17 AM EDT
Again about the short lived Clinton Era Line Item Veto:


In a 6 to 3 decision, the court held that the line-item veto law violates a constitutional requirement that legislation be passed by both houses of Congress and presented in its entirety to the president for signature or veto.

Passage of the legislation in 1996 and its implementation in 1997 climaxed more than a century of struggle by presidents for this new authority. It was a rare unilateral yielding of power by Congress to the chief executive, prompted by Congress's increasing concern over its own lack of fiscal discipline.



And yet here we are again, spending like drunken idiots.


Congress could reinstate the spending but would have to muster a two-thirds vote of both houses to override a veto. Congress overrode only one of Clinton's line-item vetoes, involving 38 projects worth $287 million in a military construction bill; the vetoes that stood reversed $869 million in spending and tax breaks.


[ Washington Post 1998 ]
Link Posted: 3/6/2006 8:57:07 AM EDT
Here's something that's always bothered me:
If a bill is passed into law, and that bill contains different articles relating to different things, how can The US Supreme Court invalidate portions of that law (if they can at all)?

Generally, any bill (law) is a discrete set of compromises between all framers/signatories.
If the USSC decides to invalidate one part of that "compromise", shouldn't all other parts of the law be invalidated as well?
Link Posted: 3/6/2006 8:58:37 AM EDT
Republicans, yes. Democrats, no.
Link Posted: 3/7/2006 5:00:26 PM EDT
My wife considers it unconstitutional (she is somewhat of a constitutional scholar). My own research in economics show that a line item veto will reduce government spending. But I'd hate to have someone like Clinton vetoing things we need like the DCM.

GunLvr
Link Posted: 3/7/2006 5:01:55 PM EDT

Originally Posted By SmilingBandit:

Originally Posted By warlord:
What does the US Constitution say?



Every bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a law, be presented to the President of the United States; if he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the objections at large on their journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the bill, it shall be sent, together with the objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a law.

There's the important part. I don't see how the President saying "I object to these parts" would be unconstitutional.



there you have it.
Link Posted: 3/7/2006 5:02:22 PM EDT

Originally Posted By warlord:
What does the US Constitution say?



What has that got to do with it?
Link Posted: 3/9/2006 4:09:10 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Napoleon_Tanerite:

Originally Posted By SmilingBandit:

Originally Posted By warlord:
What does the US Constitution say?



Every bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a law, be presented to the President of the United States; if he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the objections at large on their journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the bill, it shall be sent, together with the objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a law.

There's the important part. I don't see how the President saying "I object to these parts" would be unconstitutional.



there you have it.



Reading is fundamental. It is says if he objects, that he vetos it and RETURNS it to congress for consideration. Not that he can alter the parts he objects to and sign it into law.

Patently unconstitutional.

And besides, Congress does NOT grant powers. The people do, through the constitution. If he wants that power, congress must pass a constitutional amendment and then 3/4 of the states must ratify it.

It ain't gonna happen.
Link Posted: 3/9/2006 4:15:02 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/9/2006 4:19:22 PM EDT by motown_steve]

Originally Posted By SmilingBandit:
Yes.

This could get rid of some of the bitter pill ammendments that get through. Plus the balance of power wouldn't change as Congress could still override the veto.

IMHO: Bills should be limited to a single subject, no more adding completely unrelated items to the highway bill.



+1

I'm all for it.

ETA - Just think where we'd be if Reagan had line item veto power.
Link Posted: 3/9/2006 4:17:30 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/9/2006 4:17:58 PM EDT by dolanp]
Absolutely not. You may think it's cool now if you like Bush but imagine a radical lefty with that kind of power. Too much power.

However, bills should not be allowed to address more than one subject. That is the change that needs to be made, no more pork barrel crap.
Link Posted: 3/9/2006 4:21:10 PM EDT
what we need is zero-based budgeting
Link Posted: 3/9/2006 4:23:08 PM EDT
This president should't even have a pencil. Just look what he's done to the checkbook.
Link Posted: 3/9/2006 4:23:27 PM EDT
No. I would hate to give a Clinton LIV when a hunting or pro-gun bill comes up that needs funding.
Link Posted: 3/9/2006 4:24:37 PM EDT
No. I would hate to give a Clinton LIV when a hunting or pro-gun bill comes up that needs funding.
Link Posted: 3/9/2006 4:26:06 PM EDT
The President HAS a remedy to block irresponsible legislation. Its called the veto.

In fact, he has the DUTY to veto any unconstitutional bill. Thats what he swore with one hand on the Bible to do, anyways...
Link Posted: 3/9/2006 4:30:16 PM EDT
Every pork spending bill needs to be vetoed.

In the US House all bills and amendments have to be germane.

CRC
Top Top