Should the POTUS have the line-item veto?

[RetiredGySgt]

I voted no. It is Unconstitutional. I would probably vote YES for an Amendment that gave the President the power though.

You guys are aware a Republican Congress gave Clinton the Line Item Veto right?

 

[Staidhup]

The line item veto is an essential tool in cutting pork. To go a step further, it would be useful to see all bills become subject specific without congress having the ability to add on coat tail spending earmarks for unrelated spending projects out of fear the President will line out the request. As for the constitutional argument, I do not see the issue, congress would simply have to draft a general appropriations bill that would expose all the pet projects, in case of national emergency, an emergency relief bill specifically for that emergency. What we have today are spending bills cluttered with earmarks that hide pork. Read one of these spending bills and look at the garbage that accompanies it to gain the necessary votes to pass it along, it's ridiculous to say the least.

 

[Paulie]

I'm fine with it. I'm much more comfortable with the president only being able to remove something from legislation than to god forbid be able to add something to it.

The less that's in most legislation, the better. I see it as a good check and balance against Congress.

 

[geauxtohell]

No. Too much power. I am glad Clinton lost on this.

 

[geauxtohell]

I voted no. It is Unconstitutional. I would probably vote YES for an Amendment that gave the President the power though.

You guys are aware a Republican Congress gave Clinton the Line Item Veto right?

Yes, but the court wisely shot it down.

 

[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.

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.

Congress has always held the purse strings. With the line item veto, much of the power of congress shifts to the president. Not only can the president cut spending out of legislation, but he can use the line item veto power to lobby legislators to include pet projects in bills.

In reality how much money would the line item veto really save? I say very little. A recent Federal Reserve journal article summarizes the research on state LIV. There is no statistically significant effect on the state budgets in the long run." Instead, the state LIV "simply alters the composition of spending."

Line-Item Veto Is No Quick-Fix | Gene Healy | Cato Institute: Commentary

 

[JoeB131]

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.

Then put it in the constitution.

Most of the state governors have Line Item Vetos, and they work.

 

[JoeB131]

I voted no. It is Unconstitutional. I would probably vote YES for an Amendment that gave the President the power though.

You guys are aware a Republican Congress gave Clinton the Line Item Veto right?

Yes, but the court wisely shot it down.

HOw was that "wise"?

 

[Polk]

No. We have separation of powers by design.

That's not really a strong argument against the line-item veto. Any argument you could make against the line-item veto is one you could make against the veto power in general.

 

[Polk]

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."

I think his question stands as worded. The question is framed in a philosophical way, not asking political questions about passage.

 

[Polk]

I voted no. It is Unconstitutional. I would probably vote YES for an Amendment that gave the President the power though.

You guys are aware a Republican Congress gave Clinton the Line Item Veto right?

Yes, but the court wisely shot it down.

I don't think the Court's decision really was that wise. Breyer and Scalia's dissents are far more compelling than the majority opinion.

 

[Wry Catcher]

I voted no. It is Unconstitutional. I would probably vote YES for an Amendment that gave the President the power though.

You guys are aware a Republican Congress gave Clinton the Line Item Veto right?

Yes, but the court wisely shot it down.

I don't think the Court's decision really was that wise. Breyer and Scalia's dissents are far more compelling than the majority opinion.

Yep. I don't suppose many have read the decision.

Those curious can read the entire opinion here:

FindLaw | Cases and Codes
\


JUSTICE BREYER , with whom JUSTICE O'CONNOR and JUSTICE SCALIA join as to Part III, dissenting.

I

I agree with the Court that the parties have standing, but I do not agree with its ultimate conclusion. In my view the Line Item Veto Act does not violate any specific textual constitutional command, nor does it violate any implicit Separation of Powers principle. Consequently, I believe that the Act is constitutional.

 

[Polk]

As for my personal feelings on the line item veto, I think Breyer and Scalia have the right argument philosophically (in the days of the Founding Fathers, each appropriation was voted on separately, which meant the President could veto any spending he didn't like and the line-item veto is simply restoring that ability in a manner consistent with the demands of modern society). However, I don't support the line-item veto. As our nation moves more and more toward a quasi-parliamentary structure with strict party line voting, it would give the executive far too much power if he were able to look at the product of legislative compromise, then just zero out things that were not the priorities of his supporters.

 

[Wry Catcher]

As for my personal feelings on the line item veto, I think Breyer and Scalia have the right argument philosophically (in the days of the Founding Fathers, each appropriation was voted on separately, which meant the President could veto any spending he didn't like and the line-item veto is simply restoring that ability in a manner consistent with the demands of modern society). However, I don't support the line-item veto. As our nation moves more and more toward a quasi-parliamentary structure with strict party line voting, it would give the executive far too much power if he were able to look at the product of legislative compromise, then just zero out things that were not the priorities of his supporters.

I disagree. I see the line-item veto as putting the Executive on the spot. S/He either agrees with the intent of the legislation or s/he does not. S/He either believes in the expenditure or not. A very good way to measure how the POTUS will use the power s/he is granted by the people. Maybe, a president would actually evaluate the will of the people in terms of their votes and not the will as expressed by some pol who says every Sunday on TV, "the American people want" and then adds what his political party wants them to want.

What a concept. And maybe a president would act in the best interest of the people; you know, acting in a manner which benefits the majority of our citizens and not the few.

 

[Polk]

But do you really believe that would happen? Seems far more likely it'll just the legislature subordinate to the president.

 

[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.

 

[Polk]

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.

 

[caela]

I wouldn't necessarily give the office of the POTUS a line item veto, but I wouldn't mind seeing something passed that would require Congress to put forth a single bill at a time instead of attaching a ton of riders, that often have nothing to do with the actual Bill, to something so they can get funding for pet projects or pet bills that could never pass on their own.

This would still let Congress keep their legislative powers intact AND let us know where the buck stops when the sitting POTUS signs or vetoes them.

 

[Polk]

I wouldn't necessarily give the office of the POTUS a line item veto, but I wouldn't mind seeing something passed that would require Congress to put forth a single bill at a time instead of attaching a ton of riders, that often have nothing to do with the actual Bill, to something so they can get funding for pet projects or pet bills that could never pass on their own.

This would still let Congress keep their legislative powers intact AND let us know where the buck stops when the sitting POTUS signs or vetoes them.

That's just too cumbersome, but the idea behind it is why Scalia and Breyer favored upholding the line item veto.

 

[SayMyName]

The President of the United States should have the line item veto just as a majority of governors already possess. It would be one step closer to get control of the the growth of government.