Religion, Politics and World Events They make great dinner conversation, don't you think? plus Political Film

Bush wants line-item veto

Old 11-10-04, 01:24 PM
  #1  
DVD Talk Hero
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Posts: 36,981
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?
Venusian is offline  
Old 11-10-04, 01:46 PM
  #2  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Work. Or commuting. Certainly not at home.
Posts: 17,816
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.
wildcatlh is offline  
Old 11-10-04, 03:18 PM
  #3  
DVD Talk Special Edition
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 1,610
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.
logrus9 is offline  
Old 11-10-04, 03:47 PM
  #4  
DVD Talk God
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Posts: 68,522
The line item veto violates the Constitution.

The Supreme Court so held.
classicman2 is offline  
Old 11-10-04, 03:49 PM
  #5  
DVD Talk God
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Directionally Challenged (for DirecTV)
Posts: 122,918
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?
Red Dog is offline  
Old 11-10-04, 03:50 PM
  #6  
Moderator
 
Groucho's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Salt Lake City, Utah
Posts: 70,839
I'd love to see a line-item veto, and I'm not even a fan of Bush.
Groucho is offline  
Old 11-10-04, 04:00 PM
  #7  
DVD Talk Limited Edition
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Charlotte, NC
Posts: 7,466
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.
x 2 . . . although, I'd prefer the latter.
talemyn is offline  
Old 11-10-04, 04:05 PM
  #8  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Bacon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: the 870
Posts: 21,178
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
Bacon is offline  
Old 11-10-04, 04:10 PM
  #9  
DVD Talk Hero
 
JasonF's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 39,523
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.
JasonF is offline  
Old 11-10-04, 04:19 PM
  #10  
Premium Member
 
bfrank's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: So. Cal
Posts: 20,623
hasnt every president want this?
bfrank is offline  
Old 11-10-04, 04:21 PM
  #11  
Moderator
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: In mourning
Posts: 26,300
I'm against it.
Pharoh is offline  
Old 11-10-04, 04:23 PM
  #12  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Mordred's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 12,214
Originally posted by Pharoh
I'm against it.
And I'm for it. All is back to normal. -whew-
Mordred is offline  
Old 11-10-04, 04:24 PM
  #13  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: The L.A.
Posts: 18,122
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.
DodgingCars is offline  
Old 11-10-04, 04:34 PM
  #14  
Moderator
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: In mourning
Posts: 26,300
Originally posted by Mordred
And I'm for it. All is back to normal. -whew-




Glad I could so quickly set things straight.





BTW, you are conservative, aren't you?
Pharoh is offline  
Old 11-10-04, 04:36 PM
  #15  
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Shackled
Posts: 35,372
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.
Bushdog is offline  
Old 11-10-04, 04:42 PM
  #16  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Mordred's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 12,214
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
Mordred is offline  
Old 11-10-04, 04:45 PM
  #17  
DVD Talk Platinum Edition
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Hoboken, NJ
Posts: 3,068
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
Birrman54 is offline  
Old 11-10-04, 04:57 PM
  #18  
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Shackled
Posts: 35,372
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.
Bushdog is offline  
Old 11-10-04, 05:07 PM
  #19  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 20,726
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.
Ranger is offline  
Old 11-10-04, 05:12 PM
  #20  
DVD Talk Limited Edition
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Charlotte, NC
Posts: 7,466
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.
talemyn is offline  
Old 11-10-04, 05:25 PM
  #21  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: The L.A.
Posts: 18,122
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.
DodgingCars is offline  
Old 11-10-04, 05:36 PM
  #22  
DVD Talk God
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Posts: 68,522
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.
classicman2 is offline  
Old 11-10-04, 05:43 PM
  #23  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: The L.A.
Posts: 18,122
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.
DodgingCars is offline  
Old 11-10-04, 05:49 PM
  #24  
DVD Talk Hero
 
JasonF's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 39,523
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.
JasonF is offline  
Old 11-10-04, 05:54 PM
  #25  
Premium Member
 
bfrank's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: So. Cal
Posts: 20,623
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.
bfrank is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

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