DVD Talk Forum

DVD Talk Forum (https://forum.dvdtalk.com/)
-   Religion, Politics and World Events (https://forum.dvdtalk.com/religion-politics-world-events-47/)
-   -   Bush wants line-item veto (https://forum.dvdtalk.com/religion-politics-world-events/395221-bush-wants-line-item-veto.html)

Venusian 11-10-04 01:24 PM

Bush wants line-item veto
 
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...ne_item_veto_2


WASHINGTON - Six years after the Supreme Court took away the president's ability to veto specific parts of legislation, President Bush (news - web sites) is asking Congress to bring back the line-item veto to let him make precision strikes against projects and tax provisions he doesn't like.


At a news conference after his re-election, Bush said he wanted a line-item veto that "passed constitutional muster," explaining it would help him work with lawmakers "to make sure that we're able to maintain budget discipline."


Presidents have been saying similar words since the first line-item veto proposal was introduced in the 1870s. It wasn't until 1996, when the new Republican majority in the House made the tool part of its "Contract With America," that Congress responded.


President Clinton (news - web sites) happily signed the legislation, and in 1997 he used his new power 82 times to negate specific projects in larger spending bills. Congress overrode his veto 38 times, although it still resulted in savings of almost $2 billion.


Clinton singled out for elimination programs that, detractors said, benefited a single tour boat operator in Alaska, or dredged a Mississippi lake that primarily served yachts and pleasure boats.


Two of the losers, New York City and Idaho potato growers, went to court, however, and in 1997 the Supreme Court ruled on a 6-3 vote that the law gave the president unconstitutional unilateral power to change laws enacted by Congress.


The nation returned to what is now current law: The president signs or vetoes spending or tax bills in their entirety; he cannot eliminate items within the bills.


The line-item veto helps restrain excessive spending, said Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, but "failure of political will does not justify unconstitutional remedies."


Opponents said the law seriously eroded Congress' power over the purse and tilted the Constitution's system of checks and balances dangerously in favor of the executive branch.


"It is a malformed monstrosity, born out of wedlock," thundered Sen. Robert Byrd (news, bio, voting record) of West Virginia, the senior Democrat on the Senate Appropriations Committee and a staunch defender of the rights of the legislative branch.


With the court ruling and the return of budget surpluses during Clinton's presidency, the line-item issue faded away. As deficits reappeared and mounted to record levels under Bush, the issue also reappeared.


The administration has put language in its annual budget proposals that encourage another look at the line-item veto. White House Budget Director Josh Bolten told the Senate Budget Committee this year that the administration hopes to work with Congress to draft legislation that would stand up to constitutional scrutiny.


"We hope the president has the political courage to follow through on this," said David Williams, spokesman for Citizens Against Government Waste, a leading advocate of the line-item veto as a means to rein in government spending. "This could be one of his legacies."


Williams said a new proposal could be written in a manner that would avoid the constitutional challenge that sank the last measure. Others say the Constitution must be amended to make the line-item veto legal.








First, has Bush even used the regular veto yet?

Second, resident lawyers, is there a way this could be written that wouldn't require a Const. Amend?

wildcatlh 11-10-04 01:46 PM


First, has Bush even used the regular veto yet?

Second, resident lawyers, is there a way this could be written that wouldn't require a Const. Amend?
No, and probably not.

I'm no fan of the legislative veto, if only because I'm very worried about putting even more power into the hands of the executive branch.

logrus9 11-10-04 03:18 PM

I think this would be great, it's one thing I give Clinton credit for. If they can't do that, then change the law so that you can't tack extras on to bills.

classicman2 11-10-04 03:47 PM

The line item veto violates the Constitution.

The Supreme Court so held.

Red Dog 11-10-04 03:49 PM


Originally posted by classicman2
The line item veto violates the Constitution.

The Supreme Court so held.


Since when does that stop Congress from doing something? :lol:

Groucho 11-10-04 03:50 PM

I'd love to see a line-item veto, and I'm not even a fan of Bush.

talemyn 11-10-04 04:00 PM


Originally posted by logrus9
I think this would be great, it's one thing I give Clinton credit for. If they can't do that, then change the law so that you can't tack extras on to bills.
:up: x 2 . . . although, I'd prefer the latter.

Bacon 11-10-04 04:05 PM


Originally posted by classicman2
The line item veto violates the Constitution.

The Supreme Court so held.


Since when did Bush follow the Constitution?

;)


I liked/like the idea of line item veto but it'll never pass -ohbfrank-

JasonF 11-10-04 04:10 PM

A lot less would get done by Congress with the line-item veto. Many bills pass only because of log rolling.

Whether that's an argument in favor of or against the line-item veto, I couldn't say. :)

bfrank 11-10-04 04:19 PM

hasnt every president want this?

Pharoh 11-10-04 04:21 PM

I'm against it.

Mordred 11-10-04 04:23 PM


Originally posted by Pharoh
I'm against it.
And I'm for it. All is back to normal. -whew-

DodgingCars 11-10-04 04:24 PM


Originally posted by Groucho
I'd love to see a line-item veto, and I'm not even a fan of Bush.
Same here. California has a line-item veto.

Pharoh 11-10-04 04:34 PM


Originally posted by Mordred
And I'm for it. All is back to normal. -whew-


:lol:

Glad I could so quickly set things straight.

:)



BTW, you are conservative, aren't you?

Bushdog 11-10-04 04:36 PM


Originally posted by bfrank
hasnt every president want this?
Pretty much and it is all of them trying to make a power grab. They should vote it all up or down and not be able to pick and choose. This gives the President too much power IMO.

Mordred 11-10-04 04:42 PM


Originally posted by Pharoh
BTW, you are conservative, aren't you?
A moderate with slight conservative leanings. Somehow I always find myself disagreeing with you though. :)

I used to be against line-item veto until I saw how Clinton actually used it. It's an effective method to help control spending. My only issue is that I'm not sure Bush would be as constrained as Clinton was, although I'm not sure how constrained he'd need to be with the Reps in charge of everything :)

Birrman54 11-10-04 04:45 PM

The one advantage I see for the Line Item veto is that it allows the President to eliminate a lot of pork spending (theoretically). I can understand why the Senators/Reps from those states need/want to add those items, but if the President vetoes them, then it shifts the blame onto someone who isn't particularly beholden to any specific state interests.

birrman54

Bushdog 11-10-04 04:57 PM


Originally posted by Birrman54
The one advantage I see for the Line Item veto is that it allows the President to eliminate a lot of pork spending (theoretically). I can understand why the Senators/Reps from those states need/want to add those items, but if the President vetoes them, then it shifts the blame onto someone who isn't particularly beholden to any specific state interests.

birrman54

Actually it lets him cut out pork he doesn't want (aka pork that helps the other party) and keep the pork he does want. I'm a little uncomfortable about that without regard to who the President is.

Ranger 11-10-04 05:07 PM


Originally posted by classicman2
The line item veto violates the Constitution.

Agree.

Don't like the bill, veto it. None of this "prez gets to pick and choose what he likes on the bill" nonsense.

talemyn 11-10-04 05:12 PM


Originally posted by Ranger
Agree.

Don't like the bill, veto it. None of this "prez gets to pick and choose what he likes on the bill" nonsense.

The problem being that there would be a lot of good dills vetoed because of the useless crap dangling off of them. Get rid of riders and I agree with you.

DodgingCars 11-10-04 05:25 PM


Originally posted by Bushdog
Pretty much and it is all of them trying to make a power grab. They should vote it all up or down and not be able to pick and choose. This gives the President too much power IMO.
Maybe I don't know as much about this as I thought I did, but I assumed that a line-item veto would still allow the Congress to override his veto.

I guess I don't see a large problem with this because the president already has the power to veto the entire bill.

I see how it might be abused, but California's seems to work.

classicman2 11-10-04 05:36 PM

Legislative power should rest with the Congress - not the Executive.

If the President doesn't like the 'pork' that's in a bill, there is a simple solution - veto the bill.

This President doesn't need a line-item veto. Hell he's never used his constitutional veto power.

DodgingCars 11-10-04 05:43 PM


Originally posted by classicman2
Legislative power should rest with the Congress - not the Executive.

That's actually a good point. I can see how a line-item veto could be seen as a legislative power...

Ok... maybe I want to change my answer. :)

JasonF 11-10-04 05:49 PM


Originally posted by talemyn
The problem being that there would be a lot of good dills vetoed because of the useless crap dangling off of them. Get rid of riders and I agree with you.
A lot of good bills only get the votes they need to pass in the first place because of the riders.

bfrank 11-10-04 05:54 PM

We should force congress to send one bill for each issue. No one can argue that we need say military funding in a farm bill or a Museum funded in a transportation bill.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:46 AM.


Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.