Line Item Veto revisited

[daniel49]

Text

Go Senator Feinggold. I'll support you and Obama on this one.:thumbsup:
Unfortunatly it seems many other Senators will not.

 

[Genx87]

I dont necessarily have a problem with this. But didnt the supreme court smack down Bill Clinton over this issue?

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: daniel49
Text

Go Senator Feinggold. I'll support you and Obama on this one.:thumbsup:
Unfortunatly it seems many other Senators will not.

Be very wary of anything that comes from Mr.backofmyhand. Remember McCain/Feingold? Good in theory - atrocious once in bill form and even worse in implementation.

 

[daniel49]

Originally posted by: Genx87
I dont necessarily have a problem with this. But didnt the supreme court smack down Bill Clinton over this issue?

I don't remember that per say. I do remember it being proposed and asked for by Bush and being rejected by congress.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I'm absolutely against a line item veto. You would turn pork into a club. What one party wants it gets if its President is in power, and the other party becomes the slave. You would effectively have revolving dictatorships, depending on who is in power at the moment.

A really really bad idea.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: daniel49

Originally posted by: Genx87
I dont necessarily have a problem with this. But didnt the supreme court smack down Bill Clinton over this issue?

I don't remember that per say. I do remember it being proposed and asked for by Bush and being rejected by congress.

I thought this was the case.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Line_item_veto

Line Item Veto Act of 1996
Presidents have repeatedly asked Congress to give them a line item veto power. According to Louis Fisher in The Politics of Shared Power, Ronald Reagan said to Congress in his 1986 State of the Union address, "Tonight I ask you to give me what forty-three governors have: Give me a line-item veto this year. Give me the authority to veto waste, and I'll take the responsibility, I'll make the cuts, I'll take the heat." Bill Clinton echoed the request in his State of the Union address in 1995.

The President was briefly granted this power by the Line Item Veto Act of 1996, passed by Congress in order to control "pork barrel spending" that favors a particular region rather than the nation as a whole. The line-item veto was used 11 times to strike 82 items from the federal budget by President Bill Clinton. [3][4]

However, U.S. District Court Judge Thomas F. Hogan ruled on February 12, 1998, that unilateral amendment or repeal of only parts of statutes violated the U.S. Constitution. This ruling was subsequently affirmed on June 25, 1998, by a 6-3 decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case Clinton v. City of New York. The case was brought by the then New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani.

A constitutional amendment to give the President line item veto power has been considered periodically since the Court ruled the 1996 act unconstitutional.

 

[daniel49]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: daniel49

Originally posted by: Genx87
I dont necessarily have a problem with this. But didnt the supreme court smack down Bill Clinton over this issue?

I don't remember that per say. I do remember it being proposed and asked for by Bush and being rejected by congress.

I thought this was the case.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Line_item_veto

Line Item Veto Act of 1996
Presidents have repeatedly asked Congress to give them a line item veto power. According to Louis Fisher in The Politics of Shared Power, Ronald Reagan said to Congress in his 1986 State of the Union address, "Tonight I ask you to give me what forty-three governors have: Give me a line-item veto this year. Give me the authority to veto waste, and I'll take the responsibility, I'll make the cuts, I'll take the heat." Bill Clinton echoed the request in his State of the Union address in 1995.

The President was briefly granted this power by the Line Item Veto Act of 1996, passed by Congress in order to control "pork barrel spending" that favors a particular region rather than the nation as a whole. The line-item veto was used 11 times to strike 82 items from the federal budget by President Bill Clinton. [3][4]

However, U.S. District Court Judge Thomas F. Hogan ruled on February 12, 1998, that unilateral amendment or repeal of only parts of statutes violated the U.S. Constitution. This ruling was subsequently affirmed on June 25, 1998, by a 6-3 decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case Clinton v. City of New York. The case was brought by the then New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani.

A constitutional amendment to give the President line item veto power has been considered periodically since the Court ruled the 1996 act unconstitutional.

Court has 2 new members. perhaps worthy of being revisited?

 

[Genx87]

I'd guess considering who they are it wont happen.

 

[Brainonska511]

Originally posted by: Genx87
I dont necessarily have a problem with this. But didnt the supreme court smack down Bill Clinton over this issue?

Smacked both Congress and Clinton down over it since it was unconstitutional.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C...on_v._City_of_New_York

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
I'm absolutely against a line item veto. You would turn pork into a club. What one party wants it gets if its President is in power, and the other party becomes the slave. You would effectively have revolving dictatorships, depending on who is in power at the moment.

A really really bad idea.

Very much this. I would support a line item veto if the President were to veto certain parts of a bill and Congress were to revote on its passage. But giving the President unilateral power to go through and pick and choose exactly which parts of legislation are codified in law? That's not sensible. Just as Hayabusa said, it could be abused so easily. Legislation could be passed that would be designed to repair dilapidated roads and the President could veto every line except one that would give money to a particular corporation... That's not how our government is supposed to function. There's a reason we don't have a unitary executive.

 

[fskimospy]

Awful, awful idea. It's a sad statement about Congress when the USSC has to force them to stop giving away their power though. The line item veto is hugely unconstitutional as it basically allows the president editorial control over laws that are written. As others have written, it would help turn the president into a dictator.

 

[thraashman]

Bush basically tried to use signing statements as his own personal line item veto. The supreme court ruled against it for a reason and it's not going to come back anytime soon. As nice as the idea would be of letting the president filter out pork, there's not a good guarantee that any president would use it that way. If Bush had gotten, there'd have been a very good guarantee that he'd have used and abused it in the worst possible way. While I don't think Obama would be reckless with it, I don't wanna chance that power ending up later in the hands of a man like Bush.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: daniel49

Court has 2 new members. perhaps worthy of being revisited?

the way to fix it is to send the bill back to congress with the president's marks on it for an up/down vote before being sent back to the president for 'presentment' and signing.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: daniel49
Text

Go Senator Feinggold. I'll support you and Obama on this one.:thumbsup:
Unfortunatly it seems many other Senators will not.

Why do you attribute this soley to a Dem, there two repubs along with Feingold? (it scares me when Feingold and McCain team up together on legislation)

Won't happen, as Genx has pointed. The line-item veto usurps Congressional Constitutional powers. (I thought Feingold was supposed to be a Constitutional lawyer, why would he pursue this knowing the SCOTUS has already ruled against it?)

I agree with eskimospy and others that this is a bad idea. I know it sounds good at first, but I think a bad idea still. If the President can do a line-item, then sign the bill Congress has zero input. It would be like they pre-approved whatever the President did; a blank check.

The proper way this should work is Congress and the WH working together before the bill goes to the President for signature. If Congress doesn't work with the Pres, or ignores his/her requests, the bill can be vetoed. IMO, the Constution had it right the 1st time.

We just need a Pres with the courage to use the veto more often when they see too much unnecessary spending etc.

Fern

 

[daniel49]

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: daniel49
Text

Go Senator Feinggold. I'll support you and Obama on this one.:thumbsup:
Unfortunatly it seems many other Senators will not.

Why do you attribute this soley to a Dem, there two repubs along with Feingold? (it scares me when Feingold and McCain team up together on legislation)

Won't happen, as Genx has pointed. The line-item veto usurps Congressional Constitutional powers. (I thought Feingold was supposed to be a Constitutional lawyer, why would he pursue this knowing the SCOTUS has already ruled against it?)

I agree with eskimospy and others that this is a bad idea. I know it sounds good at first, but I think a bad idea still. If the President can do a line-item, then sign the bill Congress has zero input. It would be like they pre-approved whatever the President did; a blank check.

The proper way this should work is Congress and the WH working together before the bill goes to the President for signature. If Congress doesn't work with the Pres, or ignores his/her requests, the bill can be vetoed. IMO, the Constution had it right the 1st time.

We just need a Pres with the courage to use the veto more often when they see too much unnecessary spending etc.

Fern

Because a Dem is the main sponser.
As I understand it the vetoed item would go back to congress to stand or fail on its own legs.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: daniel49

Because a Dem is the main sponser.
As I understand it the vetoed item would go back to congress to stand or fail on its own legs.

Right, with the requirement of a 2/3rds majority. Again, it would give the president editorial control over laws written. Do you really want the president to have any more power than he already does?

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: daniel49
Court has 2 new members. perhaps worthy of being revisited?

No, because it's clearly unconstitutional. Congress has the role of writing laws (even if they're just spending bills).

 

[daniel49]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: daniel49

Because a Dem is the main sponser.
As I understand it the vetoed item would go back to congress to stand or fail on its own legs.

Right, with the requirement of a 2/3rds majority. Again, it would give the president editorial control over laws written. Do you really want the president to have any more power than he already does?

2/3 vote is not that much of a reach to control president. What controls congresses inability to add every lame pork item they can think of to each important bill?

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: daniel49

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: daniel49

Because a Dem is the main sponser.
As I understand it the vetoed item would go back to congress to stand or fail on its own legs.

Right, with the requirement of a 2/3rds majority. Again, it would give the president editorial control over laws written. Do you really want the president to have any more power than he already does?

2/3 vote is not that much of a reach to control president. What controls congresses inability to add every lame pork item they can think of to each important bill?

You realize that the Senate has been paralyzed by an inability to muster 60 votes on issues, but you think finding 67 isn't that much of a reach? I'm sorry, but that's not supported by reality.

 

[daniel49]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: daniel49

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: daniel49

Because a Dem is the main sponser.
As I understand it the vetoed item would go back to congress to stand or fail on its own legs.

Right, with the requirement of a 2/3rds majority. Again, it would give the president editorial control over laws written. Do you really want the president to have any more power than he already does?

2/3 vote is not that much of a reach to control president. What controls congresses inability to add every lame pork item they can think of to each important bill?

You realize that the Senate has been paralyzed by an inability to muster 60 votes on issues, but you think finding 67 isn't that much of a reach? I'm sorry, but that's not supported by reality.

For items like shall we spend:

? $11 million for the Grape Research Center in NY (center doesn?t even exist despite more than $30 million in taxpayer funding since 2004)
? $2 million to the NAVY for ?waterless urinals?
? $6 million to research new uses for wood
? $1 million to John Murtha?s non-existent recipient (Murtha did not defend the challenge, and the earmark was dropped)
? $1 million for the Hillary Clinton?s ?Hippie? museum to honor Woodstock
? $500,000 for the Sparta Teapot Museum
? $13.5 to an Irish group that funds the World Toilet Summit
? $300,000 to analyze bear fur
? $100,000 to construct a fake prison as part of a museum
? $1.3 million for Raleigh, North Carolina to build a year round, ?climate-controlled? park carousel ? $4.25 million for beach in Plum Island
? $63 million in unspent earmarks for the Michigan Dept. of Transportation (earmarks will be absorbed by the federal government).
? $2 million to repair and replace river crossing bridges on the Cedar Valley Nature Trail
? $3 million for a downtown Waterloo ?river walk? trail loop on the Cedar, envisioned as part of the downtown Riverfront Renaissance project.
? Nearly $2 million for development of a children?s book illustration gallery at the Hearst Center for the Arts in Cedar Falls.
? New Hampshire Senators ask for $2 million earmark for state?s fisherman
? Pennsylvania Congressman brings home $185,000 earmark for truck drivers training


etc etc etc no I think 2/3 would work.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: daniel49

Originally posted by: Fern
-snip-

Because a Dem is the main sponser.
I'm not sure of the significance of that. Wouldn't a Dem be the 'main sponsor' since they are in power?

As I understand it the vetoed item would go back to congress to stand or fail on its own legs.
Well, good luck with that. It would likely be dead unless it was a super popular earmark (in which case I doubt it would be vetoed).

The way it seems to me is if Congressperson gets a little of what they want they vote for the bill and other Congresspersons stuff.

There aint' no 'horse trading' like that for the poor bastard whose earmark was left out.

Kicking back the vetoed item for further consideration seem like a big 'nothing' to me.

See bolded

Fern

 

[daniel49]

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: daniel49

Originally posted by: Fern
-snip-

Because a Dem is the main sponser.
I'm not sure of the significance of that. Wouldn't a Dem be the 'main sponsor' since they are in power?

As I understand it the vetoed item would go back to congress to stand or fail on its own legs.
Well, good luck with that. It would likely be dead unless it was a super popular earmark (in which case I doubt it would be vetoed).

The way it seems to me is if Congressperson gets a little of what they want they vote for the bill and other Congresspersons stuff.

There aint' no 'horse trading' like that for the poor bastard whose earmark was left out.

Kicking back the vetoed item for further consideration seem like a big 'nothing' to me.

See bolded

Fern

I'm open to fresh ideas to end the bipartisan Porkfest which is congress.
This is the best I have heard so far.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: daniel49

-cut-

etc etc etc no I think 2/3 would work.

I think I'll spend all that money and more not to utterly destroy the separation of powers, violate the constitution, and render to the president near dictatorial powers. Call me crazy.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: eskimospy
Awful, awful idea. It's a sad statement about Congress when the USSC has to force them to stop giving away their power though. The line item veto is hugely unconstitutional as it basically allows the president editorial control over laws that are written. As others have written, it would help turn the president into a dictator.

line item veto is a stupid stupid idea.

the only way i might support it would be to send it back to congress for a revote*.


*edit:using 50/50 voting

 

[Vette73]

I am kinda against it as it stands now. I would be for a line item if it was that a line item veto can be overturned by simple majority but still hold that a full veto needs 2/3 majority.