Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
United States

Journal pudge's Journal: Line-Item Veto 19

Journal by pudge

I am in principle opposed to a line item veto. That power belongs to the Congress.

However, I am also in principle opposed to federal power being exerted, unrestrained, over domestic matters. The court refuses to enforce the Tenth Amendment.

As such, I am in favor of a line-item veto. Wielded effectively -- as a President McCain would -- it can drastically cut pork.

I don't know how it can pass Constitutional muster though. It's been rejected once already, although even at the time, people said it could be fixed. I hope so.

This discussion was created by pudge (3605) for no Foes, but now has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Line-Item Veto More

Line-Item Veto

Comments Filter:
  • I think the President should have Line-Item VETO power. My reasoning, however simplistic, goes like this:

    Without looking up the exact terminology, I recall that the Constitution gives power of the nation's purse strings to Congress. However, the president is the one that gets the blame for whatever Congress sends his way. If the president had Line-Item VETO powers, he could cross out the bits he doesn't like. If Congress doesn't like what he crossed off the bill(s), they can take a vote to override the
    • The problem I see is that congress gets to make the legislation, the president get to decide if it becomes law (minus overrides). I do not see anything in the constitution that allows line item vetos. As such, I feel line-item vetos are unconstitutional.

      This is not to say I would not support a line-item veto constitutional amendment though. I would favor it as it could be a powerful tool. However, in certain circumstances I think it is a too powerful tool and ought to be very limited in power. For figh
      • I do not see anything in the constitution that allows line item vetos. As such, I feel line-item vetos are unconstitutional.

        Why? It's a VETO, but just more granular in nature. There's no new power there. If anything, it's a CYA measure: the President is going to get blamed for signing the bill into law (or rejecting it) anyway... Why not let him dig his own hole, instead of letting Congress dig it for him?

        The disease is pork. Pork can be trimmed through an amendment that removes the ability to add it,
        • Basically, congress can be thought of as a million monkeys and the president is crossing stuff out in an effort to make the completed works of Shakespeare. Would you say the monkeys did it, or the president?

          I know that congress will never limit itself unless there is a major voter revolt. However, a line-item veto produces the same effect, but by starting at the wrong end of the equation. Certainly congress may be tricked into limiting itself through a line-item veto, but it is still the wrong end to fix
        • I do not see anything in the constitution that allows line item vetos. As such, I feel line-item vetos are unconstitutional.

          Why? It's a VETO, but just more granular in nature. There's no new power there.

          That's not what the Supreme Court said a decade ago when they invalidated the line-item veto. And I agree with them, in broad principle. It is a new power, it is legislative authority: it allows the President to actually make laws rather than just vote up or down on them.

          Consider a law that says two thin
          • You've made a good point.

            So... What can be done about Congress' nasty habit of adding pork to badly-needed bills, or adding "poison pills", so the president is "damned if he does, and damned if he doesn't" sign it?

            Near as I can figure, a Line-Item VETO, even if it has some restrictions on how it can be used, is the best solution.
  • When Congress amend, insert, pad, stuff (and countless of other adjectives) special interest clauses that are barely and remotely related to the main bill, this is the primary causes of budgetary bloatness.

    On the other hand, it is an excellent way to sneak a budget under the radar (such as Homeland Security projects that should remain undetected from public eyes).

    So, line-item veto is more a burden toward the Executive branch in the long run. Instead of ONE BIG FAT BILL for a single signature, POTUS will h
    • If loss of lobbying "revenue" is a serious concern to the Congress, then imagine the power the White House will gain from additional revenues toward the POTUS's Party war-chest.

      Harder to raise campaign war-chest if the party is NOT in the White House. Its hard already as it is.

      I'd say, keep the line-item veto out, in light of this view. Even-handness is the bedrock of American politic. It is not appealing to have a single party control the White House for 40+ years.
    • So, line-item veto is more a burden toward the Executive branch in the long run.

      I doubt it. If wielded effectively, it will deter the Congressmen from even bothering to put in pork in the first place. If they don't wield it effectively, that probably means they aren't using it, which means it is no burden anyway. :-)
      • Basically, I'm in agreement with Pudge here: it would completely cutoff most of the stupid pork projects, thus possibly preventing a huge waste of time and money.

        Furthermore, if crap DOES make it through, it will be very easy to see who screwed the pooch. I think it would help keep both Congress and the president honest. (Well, ok, maybe THAT'S not the exact right word, but you know what I mean. ;-)

        w.r.t. Congress having the power of the purse strings, it's pretty clear they can't handle it effectively, a
  • In general I am opposed to the idea because it limits the ability of those in congress to negotiate in good faith with one another when reaching compromises.

    This proposal that sends the bill back to congress after the veto seems more palatable.

  • I'm not opposed to the line-item veto, and I was a little surprised to see you say you were. I accept the idea that bills today are composed of a multitude of what the authors of the Constitution would have meant by "laws." Maybe what I'd really like to see is a length limit on each law, or perhaps each bill. (Bills could be diffs of a maximum length against an existing, longer legal code, and then rejected independently of each other. But I imagine the general public fancies themselves too stupid to un

  • I actually support the line-item veto, but I don't think it should be in the hands of anyone in federal government. I say give the line-item veto to every state governor.

    Imagine the power of the states if any of them had the ability to nuke federal laws. I believe the biggest mistake in the Constitution was not giving individual states more power over the Congress. Losing Senate elections to democracy (17th Amendment) was a huge loss, but I think it should have been protected against stronger.
    • Imagine the power of the states if any of them had the ability to nuke federal laws.

      This certainly would be unconstitutional. And thankfully, there's no way this could ever be ratified as an amendment. This makes absolutely no sense to me, except as a measure to create chaos in order to intentionally subvert the entire federal government.
      • You found me out :)

        Actually, I'm not sure of the unconstitutionality of the governor's federal line-item veto idea. I've debated it for years. Remember, the original power of the states were placed in the federal Senate. The Senate was NOT elected democratically but instead by the state itself. This put the Senators in the powerful position of answering directly to the state government, who generally didn't want to lose power to the feds.

        The Senate is the most powerful arm of the government in terms of
        • Actually, I'm not sure of the unconstitutionality of the governor's federal line-item veto idea.

          I am absolutely certain. There is not a shred of doubt in my mind.

          I've debated it for years.

          Not against me ...

          Remember, the original power of the states were placed in the federal Senate. The Senate was NOT elected democratically but instead by the state itself.

          This is beside the point. That the states had a much more significant role in the federal government 200 years ago (even 100 years ago) does not legally
          • The reason I started the "let the States have it" debate originally years ago was because I didn't see Constitutional allotment for the LIV either. On top of that, the Constitution has been shredded enough, so I figured it would be a great way to return the country to a republic rather than a democracy.

            There is no Constitution anymore -- everything falls under the interstate commerce clause when it comes to Constitutionally accepted powers of the federal branches. Sad.
            • The reason I started the "let the States have it" debate originally years ago was because I didn't see Constitutional allotment for the LIV either.

              Since it is not Constitutional, then do it anyway?

              On top of that, the Constitution has been shredded enough, so I figured it would be a great way to return the country to a republic rather than a democracy.

              Uphold the principles of the Constitution by violating it?

              There is no Constitution anymore

              Only if people continue to give up on it.

Slashdot Top Deals

Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no substitute for a good blaster at your side. - Han Solo

Close