Should the POTUS have the line-item veto?

[Wry Catcher]

Background info on the line-item veto:

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

 

[rightwinger]

No

It gives too much power to the President.

 

[Wry Catcher]

No

It gives too much power to the President.

The Congress would continue to have the authority to override the President; and, since any radical changes will be temporary, it would not necessarily have a long term effect.

 

[jillian]

No

It gives too much power to the President.

The Congress would continue to have the authority to override the President; and, since any radical changes will be temporary, it would not necessarily have a long term effect.

it's been repeatedly found to be unconstitutional.

 

[Zander]

No. We have separation of powers by design.

 

[Peach]

No. We have separation of powers by design.

I agree; our system is, at MOST times, overly cautious, clumsy, and cantankerous. That is why it has worked for so long; unity never equals uniform. Disagreement leads to increased consideration. Compromise is neither a goal, nor a failure.

 

[Desperado]

Yes for a number of reasons.
Items could no longer be bundled into a bill to get them passed.
It would force lawmakers and the president to actually read a bill before passing it.
It would force the president to stand on his word. no more excuses that he had to pass the bill because of the priority of other items in the bill.
Congress could override the President's veto so there would be no long term effect.

 

[Wry Catcher]

No

It gives too much power to the President.

The Congress would continue to have the authority to override the President; and, since any radical changes will be temporary, it would not necessarily have a long term effect.

it's been repeatedly found to be unconstitutional.

Yes, I'm aware of that which is why I posted the link to its history.

 

[Two Thumbs]

YES

It would eliminate the need for bribing others in Congress.

"If you support my bill, I'll attach yours to it."


One bill should have one bill in it

 

[Wry Catcher]

From this link: Clinton v. City of New York - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Kennedy's concurrence

Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, in an opinion concurring in the opinion and judgment of the Court, objected to the dissent's argument that the Act did not violate principles of the separation of powers and threaten individual liberty, stating that the "undeniable effects" of the Act were to "enhance the President's power to reward one group and punish another, to help one set of taxpayers and hurt another, to favor one State and ignore another". Kennedy's concurrence implicitly viewed the statute as a violation of the nondelegation doctrine.

Breyer's dissent

In a dissenting opinion, Justice Stephen Breyer contended that the objective of the Act was constitutionally proper and was consistent with powers that the President has held in the past, stating that the Act "does not violate any specific textual constitutional command, nor does it violate any implicit Separation of Powers principle." He extensively refers to many different cases which support the delegation of power by the Congress, and primarily suggests that the Act is an efficient means by which a constitutionally legitimate end may be achieved.

Scalia's partial concurrence and partial dissent

In an alternative opinion, Justice Antonin Scalia objected to the Court's consideration of the case with respect to the Taxpayer Relief Act, finding no party in the case with standing to challenge it. However, he did find a party with standing to challenge the President's cancellation in the Balanced Budget Act, and concluded that it did not violate the Constitution, because the Congress has the power to delegate the discretionary authority to decline to spend appropriated sums of money, which he asserted was equivalent to cancellation.

 

[Warrior102]

Background info on the line-item veto:

Line Item Veto Act of 1996 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

He can't even manage a check book and you want him to have line-item veto authority?

Pull your mouth off his ass for a moment and smell some fresh air.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Background info on the line-item veto:

Line Item Veto Act of 1996 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

He can't even manage a check book and you want him to have line-item veto authority?

Pull your mouth off his ass for a moment and smell some fresh air.

Usually I ignore your ignorant, profane and bigoted bullshit but for once I'll make an effort to edify a fool, though that effort will likely be worthless; others however may benefit.

Putting the onus on the POTUS provides a clear and comprehensive measure of the man seated in the Oval Office. No longer can any executive or their surrogate place the blame on a Congress, lobbyists or the other party - unless those items vetoed are overridden. In short, we will know where the buck stops and who stopped it.

 

[Warrior102]

Background info on the line-item veto:

Line Item Veto Act of 1996 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

He can't even manage a check book and you want him to have line-item veto authority?

Pull your mouth off his ass for a moment and smell some fresh air.

Usually I ignore your ignorant, profane and bigoted bullshit but for once I'll make an effort to edify a fool, though that effort will likely be worthless; others however may benefit.

Putting the onus on the POTUS provides a clear and comprehensive measure of the man seated in the Oval Office. No longer can any executive or their surrogate place the blame on a Congress, lobbyists or the other party - unless those items vetoed are overridden. In short, we will know where the buck stops and who stopped it.

Take your racist ass to the recruiting station and enlist, asswipe. Your pent-up hate/anger can be best utilized in one of Obama's many illegal and unconstitutional wars.

Get cracking, asswipe.

 

[Liability]

No

It gives too much power to the President.

The Congress would continue to have the authority to override the President; and, since any radical changes will be temporary, it would not necessarily have a long term effect.

it's been repeatedly found to be unconstitutional.

I suppose Wry's OP is premised on the notion "IF WE HAD A VOTE ON WHETHER OR NOT TO AMEND THE CONSTITUTION."

 

[Sallow]

Background info on the line-item veto:

Line Item Veto Act of 1996 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Only if citizens get a line item tax return.

Otherwise..nope.

 

[Wry Catcher]

The Congress would continue to have the authority to override the President; and, since any radical changes will be temporary, it would not necessarily have a long term effect.

it's been repeatedly found to be unconstitutional.

I suppose Wry's OP is premised on the notion "IF WE HAD A VOTE ON WHETHER OR NOT TO AMEND THE CONSTITUTION."

Yep. I wonder, do you think the founders might have provided such a power to the Executive if they had the prescience to see how the Congress acts?

 

[Flopper]

The only thing the line-item veto would accomplish is to transfer power from Congress to the President. Lobbying efforts would focus on a single political animal rather than 535 of them. The President’s ability to reward his special interest constituencies would be enhanced while Congress’s ability would be diminished.

 

[Liability]

it's been repeatedly found to be unconstitutional.

I suppose Wry's OP is premised on the notion "IF WE HAD A VOTE ON WHETHER OR NOT TO AMEND THE CONSTITUTION."

Yep. I wonder, do you think the founders might have provided such a power to the Executive if they had the prescience to see how the Congress acts?

If they had the ability to see how congress would ignore the Constitution and constantly getaway with it, they might have abandoned the entire effort.

 

[Wry Catcher]

The only thing the line-item veto would accomplish is to transfer power from Congress to the President. Lobbying efforts would focus on a single political animal rather than 535 of them. The President’s ability to reward his special interest constituencies would be enhanced while Congress’s ability would be diminished.

And the president would and could be held accountable. Consider, few today know how their representative votes (of course they can find out, but how many do?) and they can write anything - true or false - in their newsletters to folks back home. Few know who their representatives see, dine with, go to events with or find jobs for their spouse of kids.

Every person (I suppose some get by) who see the president is recorded somewhere and that includes lobbyists and special interests - foreign or domestic.

 

[Wry Catcher]

I suppose Wry's OP is premised on the notion "IF WE HAD A VOTE ON WHETHER OR NOT TO AMEND THE CONSTITUTION."

Yep. I wonder, do you think the founders might have provided such a power to the Executive if they had the prescience to see how the Congress acts?

If they had the ability to see how congress would ignore the Constitution and constantly getaway with it, they might have abandoned the entire effort.

Doubtful, however, they might have expanded the definition of treason.