Line-item veto (1 Viewer)

[SaintsFan11]

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.

 

[Dog]

Its the butchers equivalent to cutting off the fat from the meat.... how could you not be in favor of that...

Dittos!

We have to find a way to cut the pork and I cannot think of any other way. No US congressman, nor senator could win in any state election by saying he is against bringing home federal money. Hence, you have loads of pork added to every single bill sent to the president, because that is how they keep thier jobs.

I am for it!

 

[Jonesy77]

I believe a line-item veto violates the separation of powers set forth in our Constitution. I am opposed to it.

That is an objectively correct statement. Which is why I think they are discussing it as an amendment (i.e. to change the Constitution)

 

[Saint Mike]

That is an objectively correct statement. Which is why I think they are discussing it as an amendment (i.e. to change the Constitution)

Ah, I would have been wise to carefully read the first post. I think an attempt to amend the Constitution would be futile---the process is too arduous.

 

[Dougd]

For me where a politician stands on line-item veto is telling about how they view the importance of checks and balances and where power should be concentrated.

It is also quite worrisome to hear a congressman support abdicating budgeting responsiblity and surrendering greater power to the executive. That is a person who has given up solving the problem of budget deficits/pork or lacks either the creativity or historical perpective to solve problems. Those aren't qualities I want in a president.

 

[Goatman Saint]

Can you imagine what this will do to partisan politics and compromise? No this would create a huge mess.I'd limit the scope of laws before I gave any president the power to carve things apart like that.

 

[d3cyph3r]

I have been schooled. I thought it was a good thing, but you guys definitely show it is not. Thanks for the edumacation!

 

[Sardonios]

Its the butchers equivalent to cutting off the fat from the meat.... how could you not be in favor of that...

Because the line-item takes the fat-trimming power away from the butcher and gives it to someone else. The interaction of the branches in legislation wasn't intended to be a smooth, streamlined process; it's a recognition that gridlock and conflict, frustrating though they may be, are often necessary to avoid greater harms to our republic and that we should take extreme care before tossing aside functional-but-problematic mechanisms for an "ideal" solution that involves a significant concentration of power.

Frankly, I think the Republicans are generally on the non-conservative side of this issue. Disappointing, but maybe not so surprising given the turn we seem to have taken lately.