http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...ine_item_veto_2


Bush has raised the desire for a line Item veto and wants one that could pass Constitutional muster.
The ability to selectively remove undesirable elements from bills would place a lot of power in the hands of a President and would also place more responsibility in what is placed in bills by Congress.

Should a President have the power of the Line Item Veto?

Would this positively or negatively affect the balance of power in our government?

Does the Constitution allow such a backdoor to the checks and balances between the 3 branches?

Should a President have the power of the Line Item Veto?

Would this positively or negatively affect the balance of power in our government?

Does the Constitution allow such a backdoor to the checks and balances between the 3 branches?

Yes, he should have it. Too many items are added to important bills, and the more important the bill, the more pork items get added to it, the thought being that the porksters can get their money because the main bill is too important to veto.
Don't know about balance of power, but it should affect the balance of corruption.
I don't see this as a backdoor anything. The members of congress are the ones using the back door which necessitates a line item veto.

I like the idea of a line item veto. Perhaps it should be a strictly limited veto. Applying only to riders or amendments to laws. Perhaps the power should be exercised only for the purpose of believing a piece of a law is unconstitutional or an improper use of federal funds.

I am concerned about adding to the powers of the presidency. I think they are too vast. This may tread on legislative powers.

I'd love too see some more informed additions to this thread to help me make up my mind on the subtleties of this issue.

This clause could be construed to implement a line item veto, but the provision would likely have to be included in every bill. The best way to implement a more permanent line item veto would be to put the provision in the Constitution.

There could be a better way to limit the riders on Congressional bills:
"Every law, or resolution having the force of law, shall relate to but one subject, and that shall be expressed in the title." However, this is a topic for another debate.

Should a President have the power of the Line Item Veto?

I was once a supporter of the Line Item veto. However, It concerns me that it would shift even more power from congress to the President. I do however want to see something done to deal with the amendment abuses in congress. I prefer the solution that is being discussed on AD here

Would this positively or negatively affect the balance of power in our government?

It would shift the balance to the Executive branch. determining if that is a good or bad thing in a practical sense would be based on the person in the Whitehouse. IMHO putting even more power in the hands of one person is not worth there risk.

Does the Constitution allow such a backdoor to the checks and balances between the 3 branches?

The constitution allows for Amendments so any back door is possible, if you can convince enough people in enough states that it is needed. A constitutional Amendment is one of the legislative checks against the Judicial branch as the Judicial branch can not over turn an Amendment (though they could possibly interpret it in ways that were not intended).

Should a President have the power of the Line Item Veto?

No! Absolutely No! Article I, Section 7 of The Constitution of the United States defines a President’s veto power. Article I, Section 7 also places revenue raising in the hands of Congress while Section 9 “No money may be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law." Giving the President power to veto certain provisions of an appropriation bill would amount to an abdication of power by Congress and a corresponding abdication of responsibility to the people who elected them.

Would this positively or negatively affect the balance of power in our government?

The balance of power is rather delicate. Presidents already take the nation into combat without a formal declaration of war. I don’t think giving the President a veto over provisions within a revenue biull would be wise. We are already surpassed what historian Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr. wrote about in The Imperial Presidency.

Does the Constitution allow such a backdoor to the checks and balances between the 3 branches?

Given that the Constitution spells out the President’s veto power, I don’t see how he could be given such authority without a constitutional amendment.

The Governorship of Texas is a weak constitutional office, but the Governor does have a line item veto. Perhaps this is why Bush wants this power. I would suggest that his Constitutional powers as President more than offset the lack of a line item veto.

Should a future constitutional amendment provide the President this power, it should be accompanied by an override provision.

I'd have to agree with the others that the line item veto appears to be a good tool for the executive branch. At the same time, I'm leaning in agreement towards BoF's position in relation to the constitution. When reading the constitution, I don't see the power vested in the executive branch anywhere that concerns legislation, other than the veto power.
-Article I, Section I

I tried looking up the other side of this issue and consulted the CATO Institute online. What I found was an article that mentioned examples of pork spending, but little constitutional reasoning. They even had a CATO Institute member testify in front of congress in 1995 regarding it, but he too couldn't muster much evidence for the provision being constitutional.

Not only that, but the present power that the president has is exactly what is stipulated in the constitution. Now I'm not a constitutional literalist, but I find the part as mentioned by BoF to highlight the founder's intentions.

-Article 7, Clause 2

So under our present system, the president could threaten to use the veto if provisions are not taken out before final passage of the given bill. It would require a president to stand up for his principles, and to perhaps take a stand against senior leaders of his own party who engage in egregious pork spending. A president could draw a firm line in the sand, but no one, not even now, has the desire to do this. Simply because a president won't stand up to pork spending on a given bill due to his senior party leaders, doesn't mean that we should grant that same president more power over the legislative branch. I honestly don't see how it passes constitutional muster.

I think the line item veto is bad for any president, Democrat, Republican, Whig, Federalist or anything else past, present or future. In the constitution (which the members above have thankfully quoted), the president must object to a whole bill. He cannot pick and choose what to strike out. If he does, that basically makes him a one man law maker.

Here's a hypothetical bill to clarify what I mean. No relation to any political figure (past or present) is intended. This bill would never actually be drafted but it's meant to point a possible abuse in power. This "scenario" could take place on any bill with any topic.