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
37
Age
43
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:
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:
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.
 
Its the butchers equivalent to cutting off the fat from the meat.... how could you not be in favor of that...

when it become cutting off the meat from the fat
 
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.
 
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.
 
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
 
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:
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.
 
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.
 
I believe a line-item veto violates the separation of powers set forth in our Constitution. I am opposed to it.
 

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

    Back
    Top Bottom