Line Item Veto.

[nickshepDEM]

Poll question: Line Item Veto.

Should the President of the United States have the power to line item veto?

Try not to think of Bush alone. Think about future and past presidents.

[DaveinMD]

1. I think the line item veto

is unconstitutional. It gives too much power to the executive, thereby diluting the seperation of powers that our government was built on.

[tk2kewl]

2. it definitely is

it would require an amendment

[tritsofme]

5. It has been argued that it would be constitutional

If the line-item veto law expired with each Congress and had to be renewed.

[tk2kewl]

10. kinda like this bullshit of giving the president "authority" to use force

rather than declaring war? :shrug:

I wonder if that can somehow be made illegal? Could citizens sue Congress, I wonder? I hate that they abdicate their Constitutional duty.

[Yupster]

8. When the Confederate Constitutional Convention

was held in Montgomery, they ended up making very few changes to the US Constitution.

But one change they did make was including the line-item veto.

Just thought that was interesting as it's been the only time when people have actually had a chance to rewrite the Constitution.

[tritsofme]

3. In all proposed line item veto legislation it could be overturned

Just as vetoes are overturned today.

That is the only way we will ever get control of these ridiculous "omnibus" spending bills with thousands of earmarks for pork, aka the bridge to nowhere.

[DaveinMD]

4. bad results

don't justify overturning years of constitutional law. Entire bills can be vetoed, not parts of bills.

[SnoopDog]

6. Better yet,...

Bills should be indivisible - One bill, one topic. No multi faceted bills that encompass a plethora of requests.

And, all bills must be presented in full to Congress for 5 business days so that they have time to read them.

Then, maybe, a line item veto is deemed unnecessary.

[Zynx]

14. I think that actually is a fairly good idea.

It might slow things up, but Congress passes too much legislation anyway.

[SnoopDog]

18. I think everybody needs to slow down anyway...it takes time to think...

[MH1]

16. One minor addition to your suggestion...

"And, all bills must be presented in full to Congress for 5 business days so that they have time to read them."

I would like to see the time required for review to be dependent on the length of the bill, with a minimum like 5 days. Say for example, 1 business day of review for every 10 pages of text. Then a 3000-page bill would require 300 business days of review, making 3000-page bills essentially impossible to consider.

[SnoopDog]

17. Sure... The whole idea is to allow Senators/Reps to read and..

understand the bills they are voting on. It is our Democracy we are talking about.

Also, another idea is that ALL Senators and ALL Rep MUST be present to vote on Bills. There can be no excuse for absent Congress members. This is there job. No more 3 in the morning voting without all Congress present. And no more 'not voting' columns.

AND, all votes are SECRET until final tabulation. That way, like CAFTA, nobody can strong arm somebody to vote differently.

[LSdemocrat]

7. It's the only way to get all the crap out of spending bills

I would gladly support a constitutional amendment creating a line-item veto.

[Rowdyboy]

9. Why even bother with a congress...Just let the executive decide everything

Ever heard of "impoundment"? Nixon thought he could unilaterally withhold congressionally approved money because he didn't like where it was going (specifically, student loans in 1973).

The Supreme Court disagreed with Richard Nixon on impoundment and also disagreed with the Repubs on the line item veto.

I agree with the court in both cases.

[tritsofme]

11. I never thought of the line item veto as "Republican"

It got 70 votes in the Senate, it was passed by unanimous consent in the House, and was duly signed by President Clinton.

Impounding was different.

If wasteful amendments to bills are important enough, the line item veto could be overridden.

[Progressive420]

12. Line Item Veto

Definetly gives to much power to the executive branch and no president should ever have that power though it may do some good with pork it could cause massive abuse of power.

[Zynx]

13. I am opposed to a powerful executive, so no.

I know the arguments about pork barrel spending, but I think there are better ways of going about that if we just put our minds to it.

[Davis_X_Machina]

15. You could get the same effect...

...without mucking up the Constitution by changing the rules of the House and the Senate to prohibit the use of omnibus bills.

[Neil Lisst]

19. NO!!!

If you give Bush the line item veto and he will rape every Democratic congressional district in the country.

NO, never, never, never!

[Martin Eden]

20. I voted maybe, because

on one hand, it could help balance the budget and eliminate odious legislation that sneak into law by being attached to larger packages.

On the other hand, the line item veto increases the power of the presidency -- something that doesn't seem like such a good idea right now.

MAYBE if executive power can be checked in other areas and informed citizens hold government more accountable, the line item veto could serve to trim pork and prevent sneaky legislation without this power being abused by the president.