Bush's line-item veto proposal

I'm not certain what provisions are different from Clinton's (mainly b/c I wasn't as astute about politics 14 years ago). It sounds interesting, though, of course, runs the risk of allocating yet more power in the executive.

The 2007 budget includes allocations to companies for drilling in ANWR (I believe). Given that (1) this was something decided against, yet was included in the budget anyway and (2) budget bills can't be voted on in part, and only in whole, I'd play tit-for-tat and approve of the line-item veto only if they revised the budget in that manner.

Not that I'd be listened to, but I'm just sayin'.
 
The Imperial Presidency. You all are witnessing right now! Get a good seat while the Executive Branch takes over more and more!
 
[quote name='evanft']Didn't the Supreme Court already shoot this down, or is Bush proposing an amendent?[/QUOTE]

Yes, the Supreme Court shot it down, and no, Bush is not proposing an amendment. Bush is instead submitting it via the well-known and often-used IOKIYAR procedure (Its OK If You're A Republican) under which most of his presidency has been run.
 
Clintons version was he could veto any portion of a bill and then pass the bill. Bush can veto a portion of the bill, but then congress gets a vote (simple majority) on what was vetoed. He cannot just veto a bill and then pass the rest without congress having a say.

He's basically just modifying it and seeing if congress approves.
 
How about instead of giving the executive branch Line Item Veto Power, we simply remove the ability for congress to add riders to bills?
 
[quote name='SpeedyG']How about instead of giving the executive branch Line Item Veto Power, we simply remove the ability for congress to add riders to bills?[/QUOTE]

The problem with that is the same problem term limits has; while a great idea and one that would reduce the confounding complexity of bills to an extent that more citizens could understand just what passing a particular bill entails, it ultimately resides on Congress to propose and pass legislation that is contrary to their continued existence and success (both things, I think we can all agree on, that end up being detrimental to the general populace).

In the end, I'm still not certain about line-item veto, even in Bush's proposal, which provides for greater checks than Clinton's version. I'm approaching with the mindset that we will all be *shocked* if, in passing this bill, the veto power is used with equal force to strike superfluous elements of bills from the left and right. It could easily be used to only strike elements proposed by the party that the president is not (and that's probably what many of us expect, thinking that any spending reduction is probably good); the end result would be a false reinforcement that a certain party can actually get things done, while the other is stocked to the brim with incompetent buffoons who can't get anything done to save their lives. While many of us view our "opposite" party that way already, I see no reason to reify that through legislation.
 
Sorry, it almost seems like a good idea, but the closer you look the crappier it gets. Yeah, it'd give the president power to take riders and pork off a bill, but that's a double edged sword. If used improperly it'd allow him to remove, I dunno, sex ed funding from an education budget, military pensions or danger pay from a DoD budget, pretty much any check and balance measure put into a bill. It gives him too much power, as he didn't have enough already. He's president, not king.
 
I was in favor of the line item veto for Clinton. It's in place for numerous state governors. I really don't remember why it was KIA under Clinton.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']I was in favor of the line item veto for Clinton. It's in place for numerous state governors. I really don't remember why it was KIA under Clinton.[/quote]

Probably because bills could be passsed that differed from what congress approved of. One section of a bill may be dependent on another, and when that other part is vetoed the first part may not have passed congress. At least that's a concern I have.
 
I've got an idea. Start passing bills that are coherent, fair, and necessary without extra baggage. The president could veto bills out of hand that are contrary to rule #1.

Oh, shucks, that's the way it's supposed to be done in the first place without a new constitutional ammendment. Wow, functional government instead of gutless, what a concept !
 
[quote name='bmulligan']I've got an idea. Start passing bills that are coherent, fair, and necessary without extra baggage. The president could veto bills out of hand that are contrary to rule #1.

Oh, shucks, that's the way it's supposed to be done in the first place without a new constitutional ammendment. Wow, functional government instead of gutless, what a concept ![/QUOTE]

Sure it would be great if this actually happened, but with the current Congress and Congresses in the foreseeable future dominated by the evil self-interested machine of the two-party system, it's not going to happen.

I don't think this one violates the Constitution since Congress still has to vote on what was stripped out. OTOH, I share myke's concern over it being used to punish the party in opposition to the president instead of responsibly. Although I guess you could argue the unwanted media attention given to line-item vetoes of items specifically designed to hurt the opposition might give the president pause, but that's kind of a weak check.

And to whoever said more power in the hands of the executive, I don't think it's much more power since Congress votes up or down on it in the end. There are plenty of other areas where excess executive power is of much more concern, to me at least.
 
It was once thought the brain was like any other organ. It would someday be possible to sever the mind of a being and implant its essence into that of some other empty shell. The first age of reason changed this view and science itself cried foul claiming it could never be done. But, as in the past with other organs such as the heart, the nolo tengere doctrine had been as certain as the sun revolving around the earth.

The ressurection was commencing at the precipice of global extinction. It had taken the better part of one and one half centuries, but the barrier had been breached proving both the triumph of intellect and the vacuousness of human moral fortitude. A new age of reason was about to engulf the races for the next thousand years making conflict, resolution, and choice unnecessary for all future generations.

One small sample was preserved by an echelon of men of unknown association. Their mission was to serve the public trust and preserve the union of men for posterity and make an ungodly amount of money along the way. The founder's, sadly, were unable to complete the journey themselves, but their trusted heirs have poured the path to righteousness, at precisely the right time. For on the brink of civil war, when our own country was the most divided in history, the need for a saviour once again arose and this time the grand maestro would awaken from his eternal slumber.

For one-hundred-and-forty-one years ago, Abraham Lincoln's head had been preserved in ice, transported to the arctic, and remained there until technology would breathe new life into the specimen, bringing him back to the living at our darkest hour.

The first order of business: Securing the line item veto.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top