Line Vetoing

[DebateChallenge]

I've heard it being suggested that the President should be able to line veto bills, that's where the President vetos only certain parts of a bill and signs the rest into law. So should the President be allowed to do this?

 

[Kobie]

IIRC, this was tries during the Clinton years but was shot down by the Supreme Court.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Nope.

 

[ecofarm]

I say let's do it. Don't pass Bills based on deals between fringes. Pass Bills that everyone can live with each part alone. Come to agreement on ours and yours independent of each other. If part A and B are both moderate compromises each alone, it's politically untenable to play games with legitimate Congressional work. It's a paradigm shifting thing and I'd like to see. If it doesn't work, rescind.

 

[Anagram]

It's unconstitutional of course after Clinton v. New York.

Although I do see some merit to a line-item veto, I think the drawbacks outweigh them for changing the constitution to allow it.

 

[Hawkeye10]

I've heard it being suggested that the President should be able to line veto bills, that's where the President vetos only certain parts of a bill and signs the rest into law. So should the President be allowed to do this?

Hell No.

 

[azgreg]

IIRC, this was tries during the Clinton years but was shot down by the Supreme Court.

Yep, Clinton vs City of New York

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/97-1374.ZO.html

 

[DebateChallenge]

So just about everybody here is against line vetoing and as some people pointed out it was declared unconstitutional by the SCOTUS during the Clinton administration. So why are you against it? Is it giving the President too much power?

 

[ecofarm]

It's unconstitutional of course after Clinton v. New York.

Although I do see some merit to a line-item veto, I think the drawbacks outweigh them for changing the constitution to allow it.

What are those that lean executive and right to do? I'm glad I can non-partisanly say, "Clinton got robbed, bad ruling". I don't remember the details. I suppose I'll begrudgingly accept the ruling but reserve the right to radical rhetoric.

 

[Cordelier]

Of Course, if you're serious about the line-item veto, and want to get around the Supreme Court, there's always the option of amending the Constitution.

 

[ecofarm]

Of Course, if you're serious about the line-item veto, and want to get around the Supreme Court, there's always the option of amending the Constitution.

That's not getting around the SC. Some help you are. Getting around is some kinda "but this is different". You got one of those for us? Thanks in advance.

 

[jamesrage]

I've heard it being suggested that the President should be able to line veto bills, that's where the President vetos only certain parts of a bill and signs the rest into law. So should the President be allowed to do this?

No. Because of the fact line item gives the president the authority to veto parts of a bill he doesn't want then that means any compromise will be flushed down the toilet as soon as the bill hits his desk. Just think for a second what would happen if hypothetically a immigration bill with some amnesty and some border security in it hits a pro-illegal immigration president's desk. He would veto all the border security provisions in it while keeping the amnesty. Of if a immigration bill with some amnesty and some funding for the border wall was to hit the desk of a president who is anti-illegal immigration. He would veto the amnesty and keep the border wall funding. Basically a president will scrub parts of a bill along party lines with line item veto power.

 

[Cordelier]

That's not getting around the SC. Some help you are. Getting around is some kinda "but this is different". You got one of those for us? Thanks in advance.

Yeah, I know I entered Capt. Obvious territory there *L* But the Presentment Clause is airtight on Presidential vetoes... I don't see any way of getting around it.

 

[ttwtt78640]

I say let's do it. Don't pass Bills based on deals between fringes. Pass Bills that everyone can live with each part alone. Come to agreement on ours and yours independent of each other. If part A and B are both moderate compromises each alone, it's politically untenable to play games with legitimate Congressional work. It's a paradigm shifting thing and I'd like to see. If it doesn't work, rescind.

That is essentially saying that each line (or part - whatever that is) must be passed as a separate bill. Could you imagine if that was done (allowed?) for PPACA, federal income tax bracket rate changes or Social Security?

 

[Skeptic Bob]

I used to support it, but now I think it is just giving too much power Presidency when I already think the Presidency has become too powerful. Yeah, I am aware of the pro arguments. I just don’t think they outweigh the negatives.

 

[ecofarm]

That is essentially saying that each line (or part - whatever that is) must be passed as a separate bill. Could you imagine if that was done (allowed?) for PPACA, federal income tax bracket rate changes or Social Security?

First, new paradigm.

It's no longer "I'll give you this if you give me that". Legislation is now "I agree this much of yours is acceptable. You agree this much of mine is acceptable. Each agreement stands without the other".

Then... what sort of legislation is passed? How is it different? Best and worst case scenario. Everyone knows worst case. Have you considered best case?

 

[ttwtt78640]

First, new paradigm.

It's no longer "I'll give you this if you give me that". Legislation is now "I agree this much of yours is acceptable. You agree this much of mine is acceptable. Each agreement stands without the other".

Then... what sort of legislation is passed? How is it different? Best and worst case scenario. Everyone knows worst case. Have you considered best case?

I understand your point better now yet still see a huge problem with it. If we agree that I will give up my barking dog if you give up playing music on your deck after 10 PM and each part (a law prohibiting that specific activity) must be passed separately (and with the vote of the other person) then whoever gets their piece of that (handshake?) agreement passed first is assured of a victory while the second risks a sudden change of mind.

Add in the complexity of a third party (e.g. the POTUS) who has agreed with neither concept and the risk becomes even greater that our (handshake?) agreement will not be considered at all and that one specific ban may be approved while the other is vetoed.

Making one part of the joint agreement additional spending and the other part additional revenue runs the same risk if they are not coupled into a single "package deal" bill.

 

[ecofarm]

I understand your point better now yet still see a huge problem with it. If we agree that I will give up my barking dog if you give up playing music on your deck after 10 PM and each part (a law prohibiting that specific activity) must be passed separately (and with the vote of the other person) then whoever gets their piece of that (handshake?) agreement passed first is assured of a victory while the second risks a sudden change of mind.

Add in the complexity of a third party (e.g. the POTUS) who has agreed with neither concept and the risk becomes even greater that our (handshake) agreement will not be considered at all and that one specific ban may be approved while the other is vetoed.

Potus would be vetoing a piece of legislation that, stand alone, both sides have agreed is reasonable. Doing so is not politically tenable. You're picturing legislation as it exists today, "give to me, I give to you". The idea is to change how Bills are produced, to make them a bundle of stand alone agreements under a topic instead of political gamesmanship.

Side note: it could, in its best incarnation, limit pork.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Potus would be vetoing a piece of legislation that, stand alone, both sides have agreed is reasonable. Doing so is not politically tenable. You're picturing legislation as it exists today, "give to me, I give to you". The idea is to change how Bills are produced, to make them a bundle of stand alone agreements under a topic instead of political gamesmanship.

Side note: it could, in its best incarnation, limit pork.

Perhaps, but who decides what is "a pork project" spending item and what is "the right thing to do" spending item if only the POTUS can make the final call? That is the reason for the spending bundle concept - the POTUS must take all or none of the items in that bundle.

 

[ecofarm]

Perhaps, but who decides what is "a pork project" spending item and what is "the right thing to do" spending item if only the POTUS can make the final call? That is the reason for the spending bundle concept - the POTUS must take all or none of the items in that bundle.

First we enter a world in which legislation is stand alone reason bundled by topic. Then we venture into objective pork mitigation.

 

[Keridan]

I believe the original idea was to avoid "poison pill" amendments that get thrown on bills to either add pork or, more often, add something so distasteful at the last minute to a bill that would have been otherwise acceptable that it makes the whole thing disgusting. This tactic is nothing new and was used multiple times against Clinton to try and force him to either give up on laws he wanted or accept things like a gag rule on abortion counseling.

The title "line item" is somewhat misleading as it implies being able to alter the core of the bill, but it is intended to treat amendments as line items.

The constitution is pretty clear, though. Either the president signs the bill/law or vetoes it. Design, amendments, etc are up to the legislative branch, not the executive. I don't think this crappy tactic was expected, but there isn't really wiggle room to fix it. A constitutional amendment is pretty much the only way to change the amendment and/or veto process.

I also do worry very much about how the executive branch already holds too much power. It was designed to be the weakest branch of government. I accept that the WH must hold quite a bit of power for everything to flow reasonably, but I don't want to put even more power in the hands of one man. No matter who that man is. Even if you support Trump or Clinton or Obama or Bush and trust them, the others will come to power eventually.

Look how much the Dems regret making the filibuster only require 51 votes to break.

 

[ttwtt78640]

First we enter a world in which legislation is stand alone reason bundled by topic. Then we venture into objective pork mitigation.

Good luck getting the sausage factory to pass that sort of rule/bill to limit their own power to 'deal'. The bottom line is that there is no way that congress will ever approve the line item veto.

 

[Kobie]

So just about everybody here is against line vetoing and as some people pointed out it was declared unconstitutional by the SCOTUS during the Clinton administration. So why are you against it? Is it giving the President too much power?

I never said I was against it; I was just pointing out that it had been tried and shot down as unconstitutional.

I'm kinda mixed on it. In some ways I like the idea; in some ways I don't.

 

[Kobie]

Of Course, if you're serious about the line-item veto, and want to get around the Supreme Court, there's always the option of amending the Constitution.

In today's political climate, I would think that amending the constitution for any reason would be nigh impossible.

 

[Cordelier]

In today's political climate, I would think that amending the constitution for any reason would be nigh impossible.

Very true. I can't help thinking that may be a good thing, though.