Should the POTUS have the line-item veto?

[freedombecki]

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.

No. Bills are made by Congress. The President could veto along party lines and turn a Republic into a monarchy for 4 years.

You had a number of people agreeing with you, Desperado. Scary.

This Republic was set up so that people would be represented in the process. Turning that job over to one person--you might as well call such legislation as "Kingmaker footshoot bill" because we'd end up with a truly chaotic government system. That plays well with anarchists, but not with every day people who just want to do their own jobs and live their own lives.

It's just not a well-thought idea. Failure to have representation in a governing body is what started the American Revolution.

Been there, done that, got the Liberty Bell T-Shirt.

 

[SayMyName]

For their to be any serious discussion of reducing the debt and size of government, the line item veto must be a topic of discussion. It may not be an end-all, but it is a beginning.

 

[Polk]

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.

No. Bills are made by Congress. The President could veto along party lines and turn a Republic into a monarchy for 4 years.

You had a number of people agreeing with you, Desperado. Scary.

This Republic was set up so that people would be represented in the process. Turning that job over to one person--you might as well call such legislation as "Kingmaker footshoot bill" because we'd end up with a truly chaotic government system. That plays well with anarchists, but not with every day people who just want to do their own jobs and live their own lives.

It's just not a well-thought idea. Failure to have representation in a governing body is what started the American Revolution.

Been there, done that, got the Liberty Bell T-Shirt.

The change wouldn't create chaos, it would just centralize power in whichever party held the White House. Of course, Congress wouldn't be without resort, because they could refuse to pass a budget if the President acted in a heavy-handed manner.

 

[SayMyName]

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.

No. Bills are made by Congress. The President could veto along party lines and turn a Republic into a monarchy for 4 years.

You had a number of people agreeing with you, Desperado. Scary.

This Republic was set up so that people would be represented in the process. Turning that job over to one person--you might as well call such legislation as "Kingmaker footshoot bill" because we'd end up with a truly chaotic government system. That plays well with anarchists, but not with every day people who just want to do their own jobs and live their own lives.

It's just not a well-thought idea. Failure to have representation in a governing body is what started the American Revolution.

Been there, done that, got the Liberty Bell T-Shirt.

The change wouldn't create chaos, it would just centralize power in whichever party held the White House. Of course, Congress wouldn't be without resort, because they could refuse to pass a budget if the President acted in a heavy-handed manner.

Well said. Only, he would also have that authority to use against the budgets of his own party as need be.

 

[Polk]

I'd like to point out that I don't think the authority would be used in a constructive way, just that we wouldn't enter in to chaos.

 

[SayMyName]

I'd like to point out that I don't think the authority would be used in a constructive way, just that we wouldn't enter in to chaos.

Hmmm, one can only hope it would be, though.

 

[Wry Catcher]

I'd like to point out that I don't think the authority would be used in a constructive way, just that we wouldn't enter in to chaos.

Hmmm, one can only hope it would be, though.

If it were not, the voters would know for the action taken is affirmative; there would be no way to blame others for the consequences of the excision.

 

[candycorn]

Background info on the line-item veto:

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

Yes. Absolutely. It should have been imposed yesterday.

 

[candycorn]

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.

No. Bills are made by Congress. The President could veto along party lines and turn a Republic into a monarchy for 4 years.

You had a number of people agreeing with you, Desperado. Scary.

This Republic was set up so that people would be represented in the process. Turning that job over to one person--you might as well call such legislation as "Kingmaker footshoot bill" because we'd end up with a truly chaotic government system. That plays well with anarchists, but not with every day people who just want to do their own jobs and live their own lives.

It's just not a well-thought idea. Failure to have representation in a governing body is what started the American Revolution.

Been there, done that, got the Liberty Bell T-Shirt.

Congress can still override the veto though....The President has the power to shoot down anything that comes across his or her desk.

 

[Conservative]

yes, as long as the same veto override procedure for entire bills applies to the line item veto.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

1974 Budget and Impoundment Control Act - Timeline - Slaying the Dragon of Debt - Regional Oral History Office - University of California, Berkeley

In 1974, Democrats tipped the scales, taking budget powers away from the President.

That act doesn't take power away from the President, as the President never had that power in the first place.

What a fucking moron.

How could Congress take away a power the President never had?

Did you bother to read it at all?

"The 1974 Congressional Budget and Impoundment Act created a set of institutional changes designed to help Congress regain power over the budget process. The Act was inspired by Richard Nixon's refusal to disburse nearly $12 billion of congressionally-appropriated funds in 1973-74 through the executive power of impoundment, as well as more generalized fears about the budget deficit. Nixon claimed that the deficit was causing high inflation and that as a result he needed to curb government spending. To this effect, in the 1972 presidential election he called on Congress to grant the President authority to cut federal spending so as to keep the budget under control."

 

[The T]

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.

No. Bills are made by Congress. The President could veto along party lines and turn a Republic into a monarchy for 4 years.

You had a number of people agreeing with you, Desperado. Scary.

This Republic was set up so that people would be represented in the process. Turning that job over to one person--you might as well call such legislation as "Kingmaker footshoot bill" because we'd end up with a truly chaotic government system. That plays well with anarchists, but not with every day people who just want to do their own jobs and live their own lives.

It's just not a well-thought idea. Failure to have representation in a governing body is what started the American Revolution.

Been there, done that, got the Liberty Bell T-Shirt.

The change wouldn't create chaos, it would just centralize power in whichever party held the White House. Of course, Congress wouldn't be without resort, because they could refuse to pass a budget if the President acted in a heavy-handed manner.

Just forget about the Separation of Powers...

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

no