Line-item veto (1 Viewer)

Favor or Oppose a Presidental line item veto?


  • Total voters
    44

Dougd

Guest
Joined
Apr 14, 2005
Messages
1,998
Reaction score
35
Age
39
Location
kenner to dc
Offline
So where do you stand?

It would take an Amendment to the Constitution for it to pass based on the 6-3 Supreme Court decision brought by Giuliani in Clinton vs City of New York.

Heres where the candidates are on this issue:

McCain - Yes
Romney - Yes
Paul - No
Guiuliani - Yes
Thompson - Yes
Huckabee - Yes

Obama - No
Clinton - No
Edwards - Yes
Richardson - Yes

I'm very much against a line item veto. It give entirely too much power to the President. We don't need one strong man, but a Congress and a nation full of them. Strong women are also acceptable.:mwink:

Opinion piece I support (additional reading) http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/19/AR2007101902304.html

For fun: who are you leaning towards?

Me: Paul, but I doubt he gets nomination so I guess Obama maybe?
 
Last edited:

gumbeau

Pro-Bowler
Joined
Oct 2, 2005
Messages
877
Reaction score
0
Offline
I would be in favor of a carefully crafted partial veto power, not necessarily line item veto. This needs to be done in combination with addressing the way Congress writes legislation. Reducing the permissible scope of individual bills would alleviate much of the problem.

In order of preference...

Thompson, Guiliani, McCain, Romney, Huckabee, Obama, Clinton, Paul, Edwards
 
Last edited:

philipkw

Save Artie!
VIP Contributor
Joined
Sep 29, 2006
Messages
1,968
Reaction score
178
Offline
Absolutely not.

I agree with gumbeau that a better alternative would be to pass congressional rules limiting the scope of bills.

Term limits would likely also have a dampening affect on the shenanigans.
 

CT Saints Fan

More than 15K posts served!
Joined
May 14, 2002
Messages
28,644
Reaction score
30
Age
52
Location
Texas - via Metairie, Houston, Virginia, & Con
Offline
If we could trust every president to only cut the BS, frivolous spending that is added to every spending bill, I'd be for it. But I guess that's more of an endorsement in theory rather than thinking it could ever work that way.

Then again, if we could trust every Congressperson to not add BS, frivolous spending to every spending bill in the first place, we would need line-item veto.
 

Saintman2884

Hall-of-Famer
Joined
Dec 17, 2003
Messages
13,767
Reaction score
1,542
Offline
I think both parties are guilty of adding pork barrel spending to pet projects so I could see the use of a line item veto maybe at a partial level I suppose. I would like to point out though that may be not a realistic viewpoint of mine because these things do happen regardless of how much you try to control it. Congressman and women from both sides are always looking to get some opportunities at pork money,even the so called respectable liberal ones who would claim their for responsible government etc etc. Or conservative ones too I may add.
 

bclemms

More than 15K posts served!
Joined
Jul 16, 2005
Messages
28,983
Reaction score
33,680
Age
11
Location
Jackson, ms
Offline
If we could trust every president to only cut the BS, frivolous spending that is added to every spending bill, I'd be for it. But I guess that's more of an endorsement in theory rather than thinking it could ever work that way.

Then again, if we could trust every Congressperson to not add BS, frivolous spending to every spending bill in the first place, we would need line-item veto.
+1
 

philipkw

Save Artie!
VIP Contributor
Joined
Sep 29, 2006
Messages
1,968
Reaction score
178
Offline
The Constitution doesn’t need to be amended in an attempt to stifle congressional largesse. The congress should pass rules to police itself on the issue of pork and term limits should be given consideration.

The Executive has usurped enough power from the people. There’s no need to endow it with more.

Jefferson is rolling over in his grave at the thought of a line-item veto.
 
Last edited:

Thorin

Idle
Joined
Dec 9, 2006
Messages
7,800
Reaction score
960
Age
46
Location
Shreveport, Tx.
Offline
The Constitution doesn’t need to be amended in an attempt to stifle congressional largesse. The congress should pass rules to police itself on the issue of pork and term limits should be given consideration.

The Executive has usurped enough power from people. There’s no need to endow it with more.

Jefferson is rolling over in his grave at the thought of a line-item veto.
I thought that I actually favored it until I read this post. The amendment would only treat the symptom, not solve the problem.
 

Saint by the Bay

Administrator
Administrator
Joined
Sep 2, 1999
Messages
30,728
Reaction score
13,292
Age
46
Location
Houston
Online
I thought that I actually favored it until I read this post. The amendment would only treat the symptom, not solve the problem.
Yeah, I voted for it as well but this thread is causing me to do some thinking on it. Sometimes we get so focused on wanting something (curving spending) that we don't see the forest for the trees.
 

Saint Mike

Are you a Who Dat?
Gold VIP Contributor
Joined
Jun 3, 2002
Messages
4,402
Reaction score
658
Age
41
Location
Gulf Coast
Offline
I believe a line-item veto violates the separation of powers set forth in our Constitution. I am opposed to it.
 

SaintsFan11

Allons à Lafayette
Joined
Jul 8, 2001
Messages
8,560
Reaction score
845
Location
Lafayette, Louisiana
Offline
Don't think about how the greatest President imagineable would use the line-item veto, think about how our current President would have used it.

I vote no. It is quite clearly not what the founders had wanted and it only enhances the executive and diminshes the legislative.

Also, think about compromise bills that include stipulations for both sides. The President could simply veto anything the opposition puts in.

Finally, with that extra power concentrated in the Presidency, Congress might be forced to play it's political trump card more often: impeachment. The Congress really doesn't need a reason to impeach (as evidenced by the two times they have actually impeached someone: Clinton and Johnson), and could easily turn the country into a quasi-parliamentary state if backed into a corner and with a large enough majority.

I'm all for Congress limiting the scope of their bills, but I don't think it should be the job of the President to slice and dice where he chooses. The job of policing Congress belongs to the American people, and when they start taking it a little more seriously you'll see Congress fall in line.
 

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create account

Create an account on our community. It's easy!

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 1)




Saints Headlines (The Advocate)

Headlines

Top Bottom