- Joined
- Aug 27, 2005
- Messages
- 43,602
- Reaction score
- 26,256
- Location
- Houston, TX
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
danarhea said: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
Kandahar said: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.
Kelzie said: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.
Kandahar said:They'd still be able to override the line-item veto with a 2/3 majority, right?
Kandahar said: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.
Kandahar said: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.
Kelzie said:Nope. Hence my issue with it.
Stinger said: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.
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.
Kelzie said:That's not what your source says:
Was it somewhere I didn't see?
Stinger said: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?
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.
Kelzie said:I don't think that's how the line item veto works.
Do you have a source that says the line item veto must be approved by congress? Kinda defeats the purpose than doesn't it?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?