Line-Item Veto - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

djugurba · #1 02-10-2006, 10:17 AM

From Wikipedia:
Line Item Veto
This power is held by many state governors in the United States of America. As of 2005, all but seven states allow the line-item veto, namely Indiana, Maryland, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Rhode Island, and Vermont.

The Confederate States Constitution of 1861 allowed the Confederate president the power of a line-item veto.

The President of the United States was briefly granted this power by the Line Item Veto Act of 1996, passed by Congress in order to control "pork barrel spending" that favors a particular region rather than the nation as a whole. The line-item veto was used 82 [1] [2] times by President Bill Clinton before U.S. District Court Judge Thomas F. Hogan decided on February 12, 1998 that unilateral amendment or repeal of only parts of statutes violated the U.S. Constitution. This ruling was subsequently affirmed on June 25, 1998 by a 6-3 decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case Clinton v. City of New York.

Despite the court cases ruling the power unconstitutional, President George W. Bush requested that Congress give him the power of the line item veto in his 2006 State of the Union address. A constitutional amendment to give the President line item veto power has been considered periodically since the Court ruled the 1996 Act unconstitutional.
/wiki

So, what do you think? Bring it back? Find a new defense for it? Bring a constitutional amemdment to bear for this purpose? No way?

Botnst · #2 02-10-2006, 01:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PaulC

It depends on your perspective of the idea of shifting more power to the Executive branch of government. Sometimes 536 heads are better than one, particularly if that one head is a bit pointy at times.

Maybe. But if the particular line-item is especially valuable to 535, let them gather 2/3 * 535 and over-ride the veto. In the meantime, give the veto to the Prez. I don't care which party and let him (her) slash and burn.

B

Brian Carlton · #3 02-10-2006, 10:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Botnst

Maybe. But if the particular line-item is especially valuable to 535, let them gather 2/3 * 535 and over-ride the veto. In the meantime, give the veto to the Prez. I don't care which party and let him (her) slash and burn.

B

I agree completely. Something has to be done to cut the pork. The incessant "deals" that are strung together in a daisy chain of spending on all kinds of worthless BS has to stop. The only way that is going to happen is if the executive branch says........"this item and that item and all those items are out".........go override them if you think you can do it.

I see absolutely no downside to this.

I was sorely disappointed with the Supreme Court decision.

Carleton Hughes · #4 02-10-2006, 11:27 PM

Supreme court? Goddamn rubberstamp,at least for guys like me who own section 8 housing,hell! they're already discussing seizing waterfront section 8 housing in Glen Cove,just a few miles away from me! keerist!,is there still a middle class or are they gradually being disenfranchised ?

mikemover · #5 02-12-2006, 09:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brian Carlton

I agree completely. Something has to be done to cut the pork. The incessant "deals" that are strung together in a daisy chain of spending on all kinds of worthless BS has to stop. The only way that is going to happen is if the executive branch says........"this item and that item and all those items are out".........go override them if you think you can do it.

I see absolutely no downside to this.

I was sorely disappointed with the Supreme Court decision.

Yep.

I'm in favor of an amendment, if that's what it takes to get it done.

It would keep legislators from burying the bull$h!t pork spending in the fine print. Bills would have to be much more simple, direct, specific, and comprehensible.... As they SHOULD be.

It would not give the executive branch any additional power... Presidential veto CAN be overridden by Congress.

Mike

el presidente · #6 02-14-2006, 07:35 AM

The idea is good....the execution will be bad for which ever party is not in the White House. Just another means of political arm-twisting.

We are getting robbed blind by some defense contractors in the middle east. Let's fix the problems we already have, not create new ones. Oops, forgot to mention all the waste on the housing that is rotting, unused, that FEMA/Homeland Security authorized. Millions and Millions and Millions wasted.

Mandatory balanced budget first, then a 25% reduction in spending across the board. No new programs of any kind.

We've got to break the habit of knee-jerk throwing money at problems.....it's too costly and rarely works!

mikemover · #7 02-14-2006, 09:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by el presidente

The idea is good....the execution will be bad for which ever party is not in the White House. Just another means of political arm-twisting.

We are getting robbed blind by some defense contractors in the middle east. Let's fix the problems we already have, not create new ones. Oops, forgot to mention all the waste on the housing that is rotting, unused, that FEMA/Homeland Security authorized. Millions and Millions and Millions wasted.

Mandatory balanced budget first, then a 25% reduction in spending across the board. No new programs of any kind.

We've got to break the habit of knee-jerk throwing money at problems.....it's too costly and rarely works!

???

???

A line-item veto is not a new "program", and implementing it will cost practically nothing. It is also not any kind of knee-jerk reaction... The idea has been around for a LOOOONG time, and has been in use in several states already, with success.

So not I'm not sure what you're getting at.

A line-item veto (in theory, at least), should HELP to reduce the wasteful spending and to solve budgetary issues.

Mike

el presidente · #8 02-14-2006, 09:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mikemover

???

???

A line-item veto is not a new "program", and implementing it will cost practically nothing. It is also not any kind of knee-jerk reaction... The idea has been around for a LOOOONG time, and has been in use in several states already, with success.

So not I'm not sure what you're getting at.

A line-item veto (in theory, at least), should HELP to reduce the wasteful spending and to solve budgetary issues.

Mike

Sorry I was not more clear in my post. My other rantings were not particularly tied to my statement about line-item veto.

My position is that I'm for line-item veto in theory, but my expectation is that it will be used by an administration to punish the party not in the White House (i.e. cutting our the oppositions programs, but not vetoing others).

mikemover · #9 02-14-2006, 03:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by el presidente

My position is that I'm for line-item veto in theory, but my expectation is that it will be used by an administration to punish the party not in the White House (i.e. cutting our the oppositions programs, but not vetoing others).

So? I'm fine with that. No matter who is in office, some excess pork will be eliminated. I don't really care about their political motivations for doing so, as long as it gets done.

Mike