would you support a limited line item veto

[sabbat hunter]

one that would only allow the president to pick out certain items and present them to congress for a vote. this might eliminate items that are snuck in at the last minute and most are not really aware that they are there, and might reduce pork barrel spending.


this would just require a simple up or down vote, no commitees, etc. if both houses say yay, the item stays in the budget and then the president can either sign or veto the budget as a whole.

[Fresh_Start]

1. No, nor do I support signing statements

maybe that civics education about the roles/responsibilities in our tri-party system. If the executive doesn't like the legislation, let him have the balls to veto it entirely.

[sallyseven]

2. I can not trust him No way.

[sabbat hunter]

3. it would be on budgets only

not on laws.

would you support it if it was only on budgetary matters to control spending. but those items could still be put back in by a simple up or down vote by congress. simple majority needed. might create accountibility for runaway pork barrel spending

[LiberalFighter]

4. It would be a tactic President could use to tie up Congress

[leftofthedial]

5. no

congressional rules should be changed to severely constrain what amendments can be attached to a bill.

[MH1]

6. Absolutely, I would support it. n/t

[MGD]

7. Not without a constitutional ammendment and, even then, probably not.

I think the President has enough power as is.

[TechBear_Seattle]

8. Any line item veto would require a constitutional amendment

The Constitution only gives the President power to veto a bill as passed by Congress. If Congress is willing to take fiscal legislation and split it up into hundreds of individual bills before passing them on to the President so he can use existing procedure to pass or veto each one individually, fine. My support is irrelevant.

But to take a single bill and scratch out this and that... that would require amending the Constitution to give the Chief Executive authority to rewrite passed legislation as he sees fit. I would fight like Hell to oppose that kind of power.

[sabbat hunter]

11. once again

it would ONLY pertain to budgets. not into laws. and a simply majority of both houses would pass it.


my concern is that there is so much pork in the budget and items put in at the last minute that half the congress (or more) may not know is even IN the budget.


i agree it would require a constitutional amendment for this to happen.

and it wouldnt really scratch it out, just make congress accountable for how they are spending the budget money.

[TechBear_Seattle]

13. Budgets are passed as laws. Your argument is irrelevant

Congress does not propose budgets: it passes laws authorizing the federal government to spend money. That is because the sole power of Congress as a whole is to propose laws. (The Senate itself has additional powers but those powers are not relevant to this discussion.) And because budgets are passed as laws, any change in the process of vetoing those laws requires amending the Constitution. And unless the amendment itself is very narrowly defined, any line-item veto would apply to any and all legislation.

Also consider the problem with legislative "rider bills." These are quite literally attached to a piece of legislation and must be either passed or vetoed as a single unit. Suppose that Congress passes a bill that places strict limits on the Executive's authority to spy on American citizens. Through legislative trickery, a budgetary rider is attached. Under more than 200 years of precedent, these are one and only one bill. Under more than 200 years of Constitutional interpretation, this single bill must be signed or vetoed as a single bill. Is it a budgetary bill or not? If it is, what stops the president from "line-item vetoing" all the oversight and penalties from the anti-spying part? If it is not, what is to stop further riders from piling on all the pork that would have been vetoed otherwise?

[ieoeja]

9. Hell NO!!!!

It was a horrible idea when Clinton was president. And it's a horrible idea now. A line-item veto makes the presidency insanely too powerful.

[MonkeyFunk]

10. NO

the President already has far more power than anybody envisioned 200 years ago - he doesn't need more.

The problem lies with Congress, and it's ridiculous for them to try to solve it in the executive branch.

"Please, Mr. President - we're too weak and/or dumb to do our jobs properly - please help us."

[Jersey Ginny]

12. No. Too much power for the president

I'd prefer to see more public disclosure of the content of bills, in plain language.

[ProudDad]

14. No Way, No How, Never

It's unconstitutional.

And I don't trust corporate tools from either party...

[welshTerrier2]

15. NO WAY - absolutely un-Democratic

most bills that come to the president's desk for signing are carefully crafted compromises that reflect some form of balance, often not enough, between the majority party and the minority party ... if the president could pick and choose, these negotiations would be meaningless and would preclude any chance for compomise and balance ... it would effectively render the minority party irrelevant if the president was from the majority party and it would give the "chief executive" and his party absolute legislative control ...

[Hosnon]

16. No. A responsible President would veto and veto and veto until Congress took the pork out. nt.

[Zynx]

17. No. I know the arguments that it could reduce pork spending and blah

blah blah, but it also could be used to be very annoying.