Line Item Veto Once More Coming Up (1 Viewer)

[danarhea]

The line item veto is being introduced in Congress, this time by both Bush and Kerry. During Clinton's term, this was approved, only to have the Supreme Court strike it down.

Bush article is here.

Kerry article is here.

My opinion is that, if you want to reduce corruption and pork barrel spending, the line item veto is the way to go. A lot of corruption stems from the fact that lobbiest meet with a Congressman or Senator, and for a fee, the public official inserts spending bills inside of bills which have nothing to do with what is being inserted. Duke Cunningham has a table of fees for his bribes. A lot of this kind of corruption could be cut out if the line item veto were passed.

The reason it might work this time? President Bush has a proposal that anything cut out of a bill by a line item veto would go back to Congress to be voted on in the normal manner. This way, a pork barrel project, or a project put into a bill via bribery, would be exposed and put the originator on the hot seat, having to defend his actions. I am a well known Bush basher, but I have to admit, this is a damn good idea.

 

[Kelzie]

My opinion...the best way for a pres. to veto something that will surely pass if he sends it back with a regular veto? Line item the date it's supposed to take effect. That was the original concern with the line item veto and I see no evidence the problem was corrected.

 

[Stinger]

The line item veto is being introduced in Congress, this time by both Bush and Kerry. During Clinton's term, this was approved, only to have the Supreme Court strike it down.

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/030606P.shtml

And they will stirke it down again, it will take a constitutional amendment. The SCOTUS said the constitution says the President has the power to veto the bill, the WHOLE bill, not part. If congress wants to let him veto the various parts then they have to break it up and send it to him piecemeal. The President in the past was able to do that with the budget, since it was really several bills. But now he gets a consolidated budget and it's all or nothing. But as far as earmarks, they are part of the bill and he can sign or veto the whole thing, not part.


Quite frankly I'd support my state voting for such an amendment. Or better yet, go back to the state legislatures selecting thier Senators, take the politics out of the Senate and they will not pass such frivolus spending.

 

[knicksin2010]

Seems like a clever way to change the subject, just my opinion

 

[Kandahar]

I'm not sure how I feel about this...A line item veto basically means that a president can veto particular parts of a bill, while still signing on to the bulk of it, right?

This seems like it would be easy to abuse. For example, if Congress passed a law declaring that "Widgets are not allowed in the United States," could the president veto the word "not"?

As much as I detest pork-barrel spending, I'm not sure that this is the solution since Congress is the body that's supposed to control spending, not the executive.

But I don't know a whole lot about this procedure, so I may be totally wrong.

 

[Synch]

A frivalous attempt it now seems, the SC will no doubt strike it down..

It could be just sentimental.

 

[Kelzie]

I'm not sure how I feel about this...A line item veto basically means that a president can veto particular parts of a bill, while still signing on to the bulk of it, right?

This seems like it would be easy to abuse. For example, if Congress passed a law declaring that "Widgets are not allowed in the United States," could the president veto the word "not"?

As much as I detest pork-barrel spending, I'm not sure that this is the solution since Congress is the body that's supposed to control spending, not the executive.

But I don't know a whole lot about this procedure, so I may be totally wrong.

To my understanding, he has to veto an entire line, not just a word. However, he CAN veto the starting date. Which basically means he can veto with no check by congress.

 

[shuamort]

Just for fun, here's a list of the bills Clinton attempted to veto.

My question is, with a republican controlled congress, why should this bill even be necessary?

 

[Kandahar]

To my understanding, he has to veto an entire line, not just a word. However, he CAN veto the starting date. Which basically means he can veto with no check by congress.

They'd still be able to override the line-item veto with a 2/3 majority, right?

 

[Kelzie]

They'd still be able to override the line-item veto with a 2/3 majority, right?

Nope. Hence my issue with it.

 

[danarhea]

I'm not sure how I feel about this...A line item veto basically means that a president can veto particular parts of a bill, while still signing on to the bulk of it, right?

This seems like it would be easy to abuse. For example, if Congress passed a law declaring that "Widgets are not allowed in the United States," could the president veto the word "not"?

As much as I detest pork-barrel spending, I'm not sure that this is the solution since Congress is the body that's supposed to control spending, not the executive.

But I don't know a whole lot about this procedure, so I may be totally wrong.

Not any more than Congress has abused ITS power. I see the line item veto as evening the playing field. If the line items are that important to Congress, all they have to do is vote for them individually, as they should have done, instead of sneaking them in.

 

[Navy Pride]

I'm not sure how I feel about this...A line item veto basically means that a president can veto particular parts of a bill, while still signing on to the bulk of it, right?

This seems like it would be easy to abuse. For example, if Congress passed a law declaring that "Widgets are not allowed in the United States," could the president veto the word "not"?

As much as I detest pork-barrel spending, I'm not sure that this is the solution since Congress is the body that's supposed to control spending, not the executive.

But I don't know a whole lot about this procedure, so I may be totally wrong.

I don't think a president can do that....He would have to veto the whole line item not change its wording......I would be a great way to eliminate pork projects from a bill..........

 

[Stinger]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kandahar
They'd still be able to override the line-item veto with a 2/3 majority, right?

Nope. Hence my issue with it.

Here is the way the line item veto worked:

• Congress passed a piece of spending/tax legislation.
• The President signed the bill, as a whole, but then lined out the specific items he opposed.
• The President returned the lined-out items to Congress, which by a simple majority either approved or disapproved.
• If it disapproved, Congress sent a "bill of disapproval" containing the items back to the President.
• The President could then veto the disapproval bill; it then required a two-thirds majority in Congress to override his veto.

 

[Kelzie]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kandahar
They'd still be able to override the line-item veto with a 2/3 majority, right?




Here is the way the line item veto worked:

• Congress passed a piece of spending/tax legislation.
• The President signed the bill, as a whole, but then lined out the specific items he opposed.
• The President returned the lined-out items to Congress, which by a simple majority either approved or disapproved.
• If it disapproved, Congress sent a "bill of disapproval" containing the items back to the President.
• The President could then veto the disapproval bill; it then required a two-thirds majority in Congress to override his veto.

That's not what your source says:

Line Item Veto

From 1997 until it was declared unconstitutional in 1998, the Line Item Veto Act provided the President authority to cancel certain individual items contained in a bill or joint resolution that he had signed into law. The law allowed the President to cancel only three types of fiscal items: a dollar amount of discretionary budget authority, an item of new direct spending, and a tax change benefiting a class of 100 or fewer. While the Act has not been repealed, the Supreme Court in Clinton v. City of New York, 118 S. Ct. 2091 (1998), struck down the Line Item Veto Act as unconstitutional.

Was it somewhere I didn't see?

 

[Stinger]

That's not what your source says:



Was it somewhere I didn't see?

It wasn't my source, the link copied with it. It's from the Wikopedia or whatever it is called, but that IS how the line item veto was suppose to work before SCOTUS struck it down. The line item veto COULD be overidden by a 2/3 vote just like any other veto.

It will take a constitutional amendment to get one and I'm sure it will also include a veto overide provision else the states will not pass it.

The question is do you support such an amendment?

 

[Kelzie]

It wasn't my source, the link copied with it. It's from the Wikopedia or whatever it is called, but that IS how the line item veto was suppose to work before SCOTUS struck it down. The line item veto COULD be overidden by a 2/3 vote just like any other veto.

It will take a constitutional amendment to get one and I'm sure it will also include a veto overide provision else the states will not pass it.

The question is do you support such an amendment?

I don't think that's how the line item veto works. This is my understanding of it:

In government, the line-item veto is the power of an executive to veto parts of a bill, usually budget appropriations. This enables an executive to nullify specific provisions of a bill, rather than only being able to approve or veto a bill in its entirety.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Line-item_veto

Do you have a source that says the line item veto must be approved by congress? Kinda defeats the purpose than doesn't it?

 

[Stinger]

I don't think that's how the line item veto works.

The point is there is NO line item veto, it doesn't exist on the federal level since the SCOTUS ruled it unconstitutional. The constitution say the President has the power to veto a bill, not a part of a bill. If there is to be one it will be whatever the congress designs and the states approve since the SCOTUS has already said it will take a constitutional amendment.

Do you have a source that says the line item veto must be approved by congress? Kinda defeats the purpose than doesn't it?

If as it was passed it is just like any other veto, it goes back to the congress and under their checks and balances can overide it bugt they have to do it by a 3/5 majority and in the case of the line item they will have to cast the vote on that particular item and not be able to hide behind the excuse that it was part of a bigger bill. I doubt you will get the states to pass it any other way, giving the President the power to just veto any legilation with any recourse by the congress is highly doubtful. All the line item veto should do is give the President his veto power for "line items" and not force him to veto the entire bill, other than that it is just another veto.