1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Line Item Veto

Discussion in 'Political Debate & Discussion' started by Salty, Aug 31, 2008.

?
  1. Yes he should!

    10 vote(s)
    83.3%
  2. There should be some limit to line item ie %

    1 vote(s)
    8.3%
  3. NO, he should not be able to veto via line item

    1 vote(s)
    8.3%
  4. Not sure

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  5. Other answer

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  6. I need more info

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  1. Salty

    Salty 20,000 Posts Club
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2003
    Messages:
    22,723
    Ratings:
    +661
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Do you think the POTUS should have line item veto authority?
     
  2. KenH

    KenH Active Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    32,485
    Ratings:
    +0
    Yes! :thumbs:
     
  3. carpro

    carpro Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    Messages:
    21,777
    Ratings:
    +1,280
    Faith:
    Baptist
    SCOTUS disagreed.
     
  4. TomVols

    TomVols New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2000
    Messages:
    11,170
    Ratings:
    +0
    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
     
  5. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry <b>Moderator</b>

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Ratings:
    +0
    Yes, without question. Then we can stop the blamegame about the budget.
     
  6. Salty

    Salty 20,000 Posts Club
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2003
    Messages:
    22,723
    Ratings:
    +661
    Faith:
    Baptist
    What phrase in Art I.7 would make it unconstitutional?
     
  7. TomVols

    TomVols New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2000
    Messages:
    11,170
    Ratings:
    +0
    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.
     
  8. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    39,131
    Ratings:
    +2,360
    Faith:
    Baptist
    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.
     
  9. LeBuick

    LeBuick New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2006
    Messages:
    11,537
    Ratings:
    +0
    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.
     
  10. LeBuick

    LeBuick New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2006
    Messages:
    11,537
    Ratings:
    +0
    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
     
    #10 LeBuick, Sep 1, 2008
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 1, 2008
  11. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    39,131
    Ratings:
    +2,360
    Faith:
    Baptist

    Uh hu......
     
  12. LeBuick

    LeBuick New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2006
    Messages:
    11,537
    Ratings:
    +0
    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.
     
  13. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    39,131
    Ratings:
    +2,360
    Faith:
    Baptist

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

    LeBuick New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2006
    Messages:
    11,537
    Ratings:
    +0
    sorry, wasn't trying to insult you... :laugh: :wavey:
     
  15. TomVols

    TomVols New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2000
    Messages:
    11,170
    Ratings:
    +0
    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.
     
  16. LeBuick

    LeBuick New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2006
    Messages:
    11,537
    Ratings:
    +0
    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..."
     
  17. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    39,131
    Ratings:
    +2,360
    Faith:
    Baptist
    I took no offense
     
Loading...