Should the POTUS have the line-item veto?

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Wry Catcher, Jun 11, 2012.

?

Should the POTUS be given the Line-Item Veto?

Poll closed Jun 18, 2012.
  1. Yes

    52.4%
  2. No

    42.9%
  3. Only the POTUS I support

    4.8%
  1. Wry Catcher
    Offline

    Wry Catcher Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2009
    Messages:
    31,746
    Thanks Received:
    4,242
    Trophy Points:
    1,160
    Location:
    San Francisco Bay Area
    Ratings:
    +8,156
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
    Last edited: Jun 11, 2012
  2. rightwinger
    Offline

    rightwinger Paid Messageboard Poster Gold Supporting Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2009
    Messages:
    120,262
    Thanks Received:
    19,822
    Trophy Points:
    2,190
    Location:
    NJ & MD
    Ratings:
    +45,337
    No

    It gives too much power to the President.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  3. Wry Catcher
    Offline

    Wry Catcher Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2009
    Messages:
    31,746
    Thanks Received:
    4,242
    Trophy Points:
    1,160
    Location:
    San Francisco Bay Area
    Ratings:
    +8,156
    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.
     
  4. jillian
    Offline

    jillian Princess Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2006
    Messages:
    69,552
    Thanks Received:
    13,012
    Trophy Points:
    2,220
    Location:
    The Other Side of Paradise
    Ratings:
    +22,428
    it's been repeatedly found to be unconstitutional.
     
  5. Zander
    Offline

    Zander Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2009
    Messages:
    17,452
    Thanks Received:
    6,575
    Trophy Points:
    390
    Location:
    Los Angeles CA
    Ratings:
    +12,892
    No. We have separation of powers by design.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  6. Peach
    Offline

    Peach Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2009
    Messages:
    17,179
    Thanks Received:
    1,708
    Trophy Points:
    175
    Ratings:
    +1,965
    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.
     
  7. Desperado
    Online

    Desperado Gold Member

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2012
    Messages:
    5,379
    Thanks Received:
    1,034
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +2,835
    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.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  8. Wry Catcher
    Offline

    Wry Catcher Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2009
    Messages:
    31,746
    Thanks Received:
    4,242
    Trophy Points:
    1,160
    Location:
    San Francisco Bay Area
    Ratings:
    +8,156
    Yes, I'm aware of that which is why I posted the link to its history.
     
  9. Two Thumbs
    Offline

    Two Thumbs Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2010
    Messages:
    33,450
    Thanks Received:
    5,786
    Trophy Points:
    1,140
    Location:
    Where ever I go, there I am.
    Ratings:
    +11,589
    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
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 2
  10. Wry Catcher
    Offline

    Wry Catcher Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2009
    Messages:
    31,746
    Thanks Received:
    4,242
    Trophy Points:
    1,160
    Location:
    San Francisco Bay Area
    Ratings:
    +8,156
    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.
     

Share This Page

Search tags for this page
does the potus have line item veto authority
,

line item veto act 1996 background