Line Item Veto

Yes! :thumbs:

 

SCOTUS disagreed.

 

If anything is symptomatic of what's wrong with Washington, this is it.

The fact that we need to ask this question shows how out of control Congress is and how it is unable to control itself with regards to out of control spending on unConstitutional programs.

In theory, no, there should not be a line item veto, because there would be no need. Congress should stop passing such ridiculous legislation that would cause a line item veto. Also, I have concerns over giving the President such powers. In a day where we decry the Executive branch's usurption of power from the legislative, do we really want to give the Executive more power?

At the same time, we are where we are and it is what it is. So I'd say reluctantly "Yes," but only by Constitutional fiat/dictate. IOW, there should be a Constitutional amendment specifically designating such. Otherwise, the line item veto appears to be unConstitutional per Art I.7

 

Yes, without question. Then we can stop the blamegame about the budget.

 

A Strict reading of this gives you only two options (directly) and the pocket passage or pocket veto options. There's no wording here to give cover to vetoing part of a bill or signing part of one.

 

If congress would quit tacking on unrelated ryders as a tactic to get things passed that otherwise would fail on their own there would be less need for the line item veto.

 

The president currently has this power. We wouldn't be giving them more. Don't forget, anything the president veto's goes back to the house and can still be made law. I think it will give us the ability to hold the president more accountable for ridiculous signed legislation.

I would take this a step further and say each piece of legislation should have to passed individually. We realize why the founding fathers grouped bills together but in this day of technology this is no longer needed. It was abused then and is very abused now. This also would eliminate the need for the line item veto ince each piece of legislation would be it's own bill.

 

Speaking of Ryder, did you know Alaska is #1 per capita for receiving these funds. I hear when Palin was Mayor she spent a lot of time in those two Senators offices getting these funds then turned on them when she became Gov... I guess she will fit right into Washington..

Thought I better support my claim...


http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-08-31-palin-bridge_N.htm

 

Uh hu......

 

That's why I came back with my link for support. I knew an understanding opened minded person like you wouldn't let me get away with that acquisition.

 

Open minded I am not to be sure. Thanks for the link.

 

sorry, wasn't trying to insult you... :laugh: :wavey:

 

The President does NOT currently have the line item veto. SCOTUS struck this down almost a decade ago. Therefore, he would be getting more power if he had it that the framers never enumerated. Of course, the framers would never have envisioned a govt like ours, IMHO, thus the potential need.
I agree that there should be streamlined bills. Then again, would that lengthen Congressional sessions? More govt costs in all of that.

 

I think it would take less time since none of the fat would get proposed.

It would also allow all legislation stand on its own merit instead of "I'll vote for your bill if you tack on my bridge..."

 

I took no offense