Discussion in 'Politics' started by Wry Catcher, Jun 11, 2012.
Background info on the line-item veto:
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.
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.
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.
Yes, I'm aware of that which is why I posted the link to its history.
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
From this link: Clinton v. City of New York - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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.
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.
Separate names with a comma.