Line-item veto would place too much power in the Executive Branch, IMHO. And I'd say that regardless of who was sitting in the Oval Office.

Edited July 1, 200818 yr by HHSDad
fix spelling

Maybe what we need is a President who uses his veto stamp more than his pen. If a bill comes to him with extra crap, he stamps it and sends it back. Perhaps Congress would eventually get the message.

I don't feel like that is an effective solution, especially in a time of war. Say the troops need more supplies or something like that, and the President's bill is loaded with earmarks. What do you suggest he choose in a dilemma like that- take on the horrible earmarks, or delay the supplies for the troops?

The Line-Item Veto Act was ruled unconstitutional in Clinton v. New York.

The Line-Item Veto Act was ruled unconstitutional in Clinton v. New York.

 

I know. I was hoping you could elaborate on the ruling more. And I believe one of the Justices (Breyer, maybe?) had a dissenting opinion.

 

And I was reading somewhere else that Bush submitted LEGISLATIVE LINE ITEM VETO ACT OF 2006. A few law professors testified before the House Committee on Budget and said it did not violate the constitution, but I can't find a link anywhere

The Line-Item Veto Act was ruled unconstitutional in Clinton v. New York.

Largely because it was.

Maybe what we need is a President who uses his veto stamp more than his pen. If a bill comes to him with extra crap, he stamps it and sends it back. Perhaps Congress would eventually get the message.

 

Isn't this exactly what John McCain has said he WOULD do?

I know. I was hoping you could elaborate on the ruling more. And I believe one of the Justices (Breyer, maybe?) had a dissenting opinion.

 

And I was reading somewhere else that Bush submitted LEGISLATIVE LINE ITEM VETO ACT OF 2006. A few law professors testified before the House Committee on Budget and said it did not violate the constitution, but I can't find a link anywhere

 

One of the rare occasions when I find Wikipedia provides fair and adequate background.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinton_v._City_of_New_York

I'm against the line item veto. It's a way to surgically dismantle a bill.

 

I'd rather see something that prevents riders to bills that have nothing to do with the bill itself.

While I am not against the idea of the line item veto, I 100% agree to eliminating riders to bills. The riders attached were the reason that McCain and most Republican voted against the Military Benefits Bill that was presented a few weeks ago.

 

Maybe what we need is a President who uses his veto stamp more than his pen. If a bill comes to him with extra crap, he stamps it and sends it back. Perhaps Congress would eventually get the message.

I don't feel like that is an effective solution, especially in a time of war. Say the troops need more supplies or something like that, and the President's bill is loaded with earmarks. What do you suggest he choose in a dilemma like that- take on the horrible earmarks, or delay the supplies for the troops?

These earmarks and extra riders are crippling our country, and growing the entitlement society that we are becoming.

 

 

These earmarks and extra riders are crippling our country, and growing the entitlement society that we are becoming.

My friend, you are not going to argue with me on the idea that earmarks are a good thing- I agree with you 100%. But, if I were President, there were certain bills that I could not veto regardless of how many earmarks were on it- such as supplies for the troops.

 

If there were a rule either A) illegalizing earmarks or B) allowing certain spending ideas to be canceled, I'd most likely be for it.

I supported the line item veto when a Republican Congress gave it to Bill Clinton and I support it now. It will require a Constitutional amendment, which I will also support.

I don't feel like that is an effective solution, especially in a time of war. Say the troops need more supplies or something like that, and the President's bill is loaded with earmarks. What do you suggest he choose in a dilemma like that- take on the horrible earmarks, or delay the supplies for the troops?

 

That's why a President has to be a leader. Before a war were to even begin, a President should have already issued the veto ultimatum. However, the reason we have built the idea of a separation of powers into our Constitution is to prevent tyranny. So it's a give-and-take system. If the President wants something badly enough, he'll have to take on the necessary earmarks, if Congress wants something badly enough it will have to go to the desk pork-free or they will have to override the veto. Of course, it's also incumbent on the citizenry to understand the separation of powers and why a President may veto a pork-laden bill that may be otherwise beneficent.

That's why a President has to be a leader. Before a war were to even begin, a President should have already issued the veto ultimatum. However, the reason we have built the idea of a separation of powers into our Constitution is to prevent tyranny. So it's a give-and-take system. If the President wants something badly enough, he'll have to take on the necessary earmarks, if Congress wants something badly enough it will have to go to the desk pork-free or they will have to override the veto. Of course, it's also incumbent on the citizenry to understand the separation of powers and why a President may veto a pork-laden bill that may be otherwise beneficent.

You make some strong points, I just feel like that the members of Congress can get away with too much. I have no intention of turning this country into a tyranny, I guess that I feel that the line-item veto is not as much power as some on this board believe.

 

And I believe that pork spending is a disaster. It is probably almost worse that Republicans do it- at least the Dems admit they are going to spend (waste) your tax money.

You make some strong points, I just feel like that the members of Congress can get away with too much. I have no intention of turning this country into a tyranny, I guess that I feel that the line-item veto is not as much power as some on this board believe.

 

And I believe that pork spending is a disaster. It is probably almost worse that Republicans do it- at least the Dems admit they are going to spend (waste) your tax money.

 

I think it all boils down to how engaged the citizens are. A line-item veto would be needless if people understood why a bill loaded with pork was being vetoed. I think with as clueless as people are a line-item veto tips the power scales too favorably towards the executive.

I think it all boils down to how engaged the citizens are. A line-item veto would be needless if people understood why a bill loaded with pork was being vetoed. I think with as clueless as people are a line-item veto tips the power scales too favorably towards the executive.

I agree that it comes down to how engaged citizens are.

On the other hand though, people don't look at it as "pork" when it is their own school district. I have seen some of the best conservatives on this site say things like "how much money has she brought back to the district?" when evaluating a candidates' worth for re-election.

 

I guess what I am saying is that I believe pork spending is a huge problem that needs to be eradicated. People, no matter how engaged, are not going to vote against someone who brings money back to their district. They will, however, vote against a President who (under the scenario that he had a line-item veto) allowed spending to be too huge. The line-item veto, while it may tip the power too much for some people's liking, puts the onus on the President, and furthermore the citizens.

It's never pork when it benefits your own district. More like filet mignon.