Does the POTUS have line-item veto powers per the Constitution? (1 Viewer)

[radcen]

Does the POTUS have line-item veto powers per the Constitution?

Back in 1992 I was listening to a radio talk show and they were interviewing Andre Marrou, that year's Libertarian Presidential candidate*. He said that the POTUS has line-item veto power per the Constitution, but for reasons unknown to him no President had ever used them. He said that as President, he would use them. (He didn't get elected, of course, but that's another topic for another thread.)

Is/was he correct?

*-Please keep the pros and cons of Libertarianism out of this, too. There are other threads for that, as well. This thread is about supposed line-item veto powers.

 

[Carjosse]

How do you remember a segment of a talk show from 1992? That is the real question here. You have remembered that segment for longer than I have been alive.

 

[roughdraft274]

Does the POTUS have line-item veto powers per the Constitution?

Back in 1992 I was listening to a radio talk show and they were interviewing Andre Marrou, that year's Libertarian Presidential candidate*. He said that the POTUS has line-item veto power per the Constitution, but for reasons unknown to him no President had ever used them. He said that as President, he would use them. (He didn't get elected, of course, but that's another topic for another thread.)

Is/was he correct?

*-Please keep the pros and cons of Libertarianism out of this, too. There are other threads for that, as well. This thread is about supposed line-item veto powers.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Line_Item_Veto_Act_of_1996

 

[Casper]

Does the POTUS have line-item veto powers per the Constitution?

Back in 1992 I was listening to a radio talk show and they were interviewing Andre Marrou, that year's Libertarian Presidential candidate*. He said that the POTUS has line-item veto power per the Constitution, but for reasons unknown to him no President had ever used them. He said that as President, he would use them. (He didn't get elected, of course, but that's another topic for another thread.)

Is/was he correct?

*-Please keep the pros and cons of Libertarianism out of this, too. There are other threads for that, as well. This thread is about supposed line-item veto powers.

No they do not have the power. The funny thing is whichever party is in power they support it but if the other guys get in power then they are now against it, one cannot make up this "stuff".

 

[Mr Person]

Does the POTUS have line-item veto powers per the Constitution?

Back in 1992 I was listening to a radio talk show and they were interviewing Andre Marrou, that year's Libertarian Presidential candidate*. He said that the POTUS has line-item veto power per the Constitution, but for reasons unknown to him no President had ever used them. He said that as President, he would use them. (He didn't get elected, of course, but that's another topic for another thread.)

Is/was he correct?

*-Please keep the pros and cons of Libertarianism out of this, too. There are other threads for that, as well. This thread is about supposed line-item veto powers.

If memory serves, SCOTUS slapped down a law fairly quickly, which law purported to give Bill Clinton line-item veto power. I do not recall whether the decision was on constitutional grounds that had to do directly with line-item veto, or some other constitutional grounds (ie, case & controversy clause / standing, etc)

 

[ludin]

Does the POTUS have line-item veto powers per the Constitution?

Back in 1992 I was listening to a radio talk show and they were interviewing Andre Marrou, that year's Libertarian Presidential candidate*. He said that the POTUS has line-item veto power per the Constitution, but for reasons unknown to him no President had ever used them. He said that as President, he would use them. (He didn't get elected, of course, but that's another topic for another thread.)

Is/was he correct?

*-Please keep the pros and cons of Libertarianism out of this, too. There are other threads for that, as well. This thread is about supposed line-item veto powers.

No he doesn't. per the SCOTUS a line item veto would give the president the ability to create law.

 

[Glen Contrarian]

Does the POTUS have line-item veto powers per the Constitution?

Back in 1992 I was listening to a radio talk show and they were interviewing Andre Marrou, that year's Libertarian Presidential candidate*. He said that the POTUS has line-item veto power per the Constitution, but for reasons unknown to him no President had ever used them. He said that as President, he would use them. (He didn't get elected, of course, but that's another topic for another thread.)

Is/was he correct?

*-Please keep the pros and cons of Libertarianism out of this, too. There are other threads for that, as well. This thread is about supposed line-item veto powers.

When I first really became aware of the fight over the line-item veto, I at first saw nothing wrong with the president having a line-item veto - after all, isn't that a great way to cut pork-barrel spending?

But as time has passed, I now see that the line-item veto, for all the good it could certainly do, would give yet more power and influence to whoever's in the Oval Office...and the president has enough power already. No need to give him or her more.

 

[Mr Person]

Ok, Clinton v. City of New York, 524 U.S. 417 (1998) is the case. I did something you really aren't supposed to do, which is to read the syllabus to the decision rather than the whole thing, but I just don't have the time. Sounds like the Court held that line-item veto violates the presentment clause. There is no constitutional grant of authority to the President to amend or repeal.

An earlier case, Raines v. Byrd, 521 U.S. 811 (1997) was thrown out on standing grounds. Members of congress brought that particular suit (no particularized injury to them, hence, no case and controversy, hence no standing in an Article 3 court like SCOTUS)

 

[SocialD]

Ok, Clinton v. City of New York, 524 U.S. 417 (1998) is the case. I did something you really aren't supposed to do, which is to read the syllabus to the decision rather than the whole thing, but I just don't have the time. Sounds like the Court held that line-item veto violates the presentment clause. There is no constitutional grant of authority to the President to amend or repeal.

An earlier case, Raines v. Byrd, 521 U.S. 811 (1997) was thrown out on standing grounds. Members of congress brought that particular suit (no particularized injury to them, hence, no case and controversy, hence no standing in an Article 3 court like SCOTUS)

You got it right. This was a one of the few examples in which I supported Bill Clinton in his pursuit of line item veto. Unfortunately the courts didn't allow it. Its legal for State Constitutions to have line item veto but not federally. So unless they amended the constitution itself to allow it there is no line item veto to be had.

 

[Thoreau72]

I favor the line item veto notion. The USC is silent on that point.

The hypocrisy of the court is no longer astounding. They can bless the nullification of the Fourth Amendment, Habeas Corpus, ignore the War Powers Act, but make a big deal about "giving" the POTUS some vague 'power'.

 

[Mr Person]

I favor the line item veto notion. The USC is silent on that point.

The hypocrisy of the court is no longer astounding. They can bless the nullification of the Fourth Amendment, Habeas Corpus, ignore the War Powers Act, but make a big deal about "giving" the POTUS some vague 'power'.

Constitutional interpretation does not begin and end with a self-identified libertarian reading the constitution and expressing his personal opinion on what it means on the internet.

Why is it that libertarians seem to think that if they cannot find an issue from hundreds of years after ratification specifically foreseen and described in the constitution, that this means the Supreme Court is somehow wrong or hypocritical for answering the question? Why don't you actually read the decision discussed and see how they found an answer amongst the intent and language of other related provisions of the constitution?

If you guys had your way, the Supreme Court wouldn't have been able to take a single case in the last 250 years, which would break the country and also be laughably wrong. The constitution was never intended as a checklist of answers to all possible questions from the future. Stop pretending it was.




Do libertarians not know that all but two of the framers in Philly were fully on board with importation of judicial review by the Supreme Court of laws for constitutionality using common law principles? Are they not aware that Marbury v. Madison was never altered via constitutional amendment addressing the breadth of review for constitutionality? Or do they just not care because their main purpose is to be contrarian and anti-government across the board? Questions, questions....



(I know it is completely useless to respond to libertarians on issues of constitutional interpretation but really, I'm wondering what the malfunction is. The fact that you take issue with the way the Supreme Court has functioned from the get-go doesn't make the Supreme Court wrong in any way. It just means you're mad at history)

 

[Thoreau72]

Constitutional interpretation does not begin and end with a self-identified libertarian reading the constitution and expressing his personal opinion on what it means on the internet.

Why is it that libertarians seem to think that if they cannot find an issue from hundreds of years after ratification specifically foreseen and described in the constitution, that this means the Supreme Court is somehow wrong or hypocritical for answering the question? Why don't you actually read the decision discussed and see how they found an answer amongst the intent and language of other related provisions of the constitution?

If you guys had your way, the Supreme Court wouldn't have been able to take a single case in the last 250 years, which would break the country and also be laughably wrong. The constitution was never intended as a checklist of answers to all possible questions from the future. Stop pretending it was.




Do libertarians not know that all but two of the framers in Philly were fully on board with importation of judicial review by the Supreme Court of laws for constitutionality using common law principles? Are they not aware that Marbury v. Madison was never altered via constitutional amendment addressing the breadth of review for constitutionality? Or do they just not care because their main purpose is to be contrarian and anti-government across the board? Questions, questions....



(I know it is completely useless to respond to libertarians on issues of constitutional interpretation but really, I'm wondering what the malfunction is. The fact that you take issue with the way the Supreme Court has functioned from the get-go doesn't make the Supreme Court wrong in any way. It just means you're mad at history)

I hope the rant was cathartic for you.

Would you be interested in citing that part of the USC that deals with the line item veto? We laymen often have trouble with what points garrulous lawyers are actually trying to make.

 

[Green Hornet]

2 U. S. C. § 691 et seq.

 

[faithful_servant]

Does the POTUS have line-item veto powers per the Constitution?

Back in 1992 I was listening to a radio talk show and they were interviewing Andre Marrou, that year's Libertarian Presidential candidate*. He said that the POTUS has line-item veto power per the Constitution, but for reasons unknown to him no President had ever used them. He said that as President, he would use them. (He didn't get elected, of course, but that's another topic for another thread.)

Is/was he correct?

*-Please keep the pros and cons of Libertarianism out of this, too. There are other threads for that, as well. This thread is about supposed line-item veto powers.

He's wrong... President's can sign or veto Bills, not parts of bills but the whole bill.

Personally, I think that we need to get away from bills that are in reality multiple bills lumped together. Like a spending bill with a line in it that grants Congress the right an annual bikini car wash.

 

[faithful_servant]

When I first really became aware of the fight over the line-item veto, I at first saw nothing wrong with the president having a line-item veto - after all, isn't that a great way to cut pork-barrel spending?

But as time has passed, I now see that the line-item veto, for all the good it could certainly do, would give yet more power and influence to whoever's in the Oval Office...and the president has enough power already. No need to give him or her more.

Well said...

Looking forward to that day when Condi Rice finally decides to run for President and crushes every opponent along the way??? :mrgreen:

 

[radcen]

He's wrong... President's can sign or veto Bills, not parts of bills but the whole bill.

Personally, I think that we need to get away from bills that are in reality multiple bills lumped together. Like a spending bill with a line in it that grants Congress the right an annual bikini car wash.

Completely agree with this. Bills should be legally limited to a single topic.

Example: A large bill with 25 nuances of hurricane relief in Florida is fine, so long as all 25 items are legitimately Florida hurricane relief related. A bill for hurricane relief in Florida that includes a fire station in Montana is not. If the Montana fire station is valid, it can stand on its own in its own bill.

I would even support an amendment to do this, but I won't hold my breath.

 

[Glen Contrarian]

Well said...

Looking forward to that day when Condi Rice finally decides to run for President and crushes every opponent along the way??? :mrgreen:

No, I really don't think Condi Rice would run - or if she did, it wouldn't be as a Republican, not after what Trump's done to the GOP. Sure, there'll be the occasional African-American who will stick around e.g. Herman Cain and Clarence Thomas, but I get the definite impression that unless something happens that brings the GOP back to some semblance of sanity, she's not going to get involved with GOP politics again.

 

[radcen]

No, I really don't think Condi Rice would run - or if she did, it wouldn't be as a Republican, not after what Trump's done to the GOP. Sure, there'll be the occasional African-American who will stick around e.g. Herman Cain and Clarence Thomas, but I get the definite impression that unless something happens that brings the GOP back to some semblance of sanity, she's not going to get involved with GOP politics again.

Possibly that, but I also think she has too much dignity to get involved in the drama-ridden cluster-eff that has become Presidential politics.

 

[Harshaw]

Completely agree with this. Bills should be legally limited to a single topic.

It's one of a couple of things the Confederate constitution got right.

 

[Harshaw]

that grants Congress the right an annual bikini car wash.

As long as it's not the actual Congress people who are in the bikinis, I'm entirely for this.

 

[American]

No they do not have the power. The funny thing is whichever party is in power they support it but if the other guys get in power then they are now against it, one cannot make up this "stuff".

You're wrong, Republicans tried to give Clinton line item veto, but it was found to be unconstitutional.

 

[faithful_servant]

As long as it's not the actual Congress people who are in the bikinis, I'm entirely for this.

Why can't we have both and include a swimsuit contest in the elections??? :mrgreen:

 

[Sherman123]

Completely agree with this. Bills should be legally limited to a single topic.

Example: A large bill with 25 nuances of hurricane relief in Florida is fine, so long as all 25 items are legitimately Florida hurricane relief related. A bill for hurricane relief in Florida that includes a fire station in Montana is not. If the Montana fire station is valid, it can stand on its own in its own bill.

I would even support an amendment to do this, but I won't hold my breath.

I disagree. I think riders, and specifically 'pork barrel' items, are important to ease political gridlock and hammer out legislative solutions. We've become too purist and virginal in our political expectations.

 

[Thoreau72]

Possibly that, but I also think she has too much dignity to get involved in the drama-ridden cluster-eff that has become Presidential politics.

Based on their demonstrated behavior during the Bush administration, neither she nor Colin Powell have any dignity or honor at all.

 

[Glen Contrarian]

Why can't we have both and include a swimsuit contest in the elections??? :mrgreen:

I have never barfed and laughed at the same time...until now!

:vomit::lol::vomit::lamo