Posted: 2/10/2008 6:44:35 AM EDT
|
Are you for it or against it? It's a double edged sword. When a fiscally and morally responsible president is in power it could be a blessing. When a lesser president is in charge it would be a curse. poll coming |
|
Probably America's last line of defense against earmarks, pork-barrel spending and Christmas treeing bills. Another edge to the sword: reciprocity or retribution by angered or embarrassed senators or representatives. All is moot, though, because the Supreme Court has struck down the 1996 line item veto law. Reagan clamored for it. After all, nearly 90 percent of state governors have that authority. The US Constitution apparently does not specifically mention a line item veto, so it was struck down. Odd since the constitution says nothing about killing babies or a 'sporting purpose' for firearms, but regulators and legislators have perverted the constitution to suit their needs on those two issues. While the line item veto was law, Clinton was able to use it without much controversy. He's not what anyone would consider a paragon of moral virtue. |
|
I agree w/ Scalia's opinion in the 1998 SCOTUS case. in part: 
full text |
|
I may be nuts, but I wouldn't mind the line item veto if the bill in question had to then go back to congress before final approval. Sort of like a contract, all parties have to sign off on it as "is" and any changes need to be approved by both sides. Of course this could make the legislative process even more glacial, but IMHO the less the gov manages to do, the better off we all are. I do believe the powers (or the abuse of power) of the presidency are getting way out of hand. |
| They should just make each bill stand on it's own merit.....nothing added, no pork, no riders....either a bill is good enough to pass or it's not. I hate when you hear "The President vetoed free milk for children" when in reality, it was a rider on some bill to tax the shit of of us or to waste money. |
Well that's the problem. With Christmas Tree legislation, the heart of the spending bill might be fine and necessary, but a-hole congresscritters attach all kinds of wasteful pork to bills that need to be passed and should not be vetoed. The line-item veto eradicates this practice. But of course Congress can't have that so they cry bloody murder to an obvious improvement in the political process. |
Be realistic. There is no way in hell Congress will act responsibly unless they are forced or overridden. Congress is the American institution with the least esteem and most distrust for a reason. |
Congress is hundreds of people. The president is one person. Line item veto is far too much power in one person's hands. The president already has enough power. Remember that the point of a 3 branch system of government is to keep the power distributed. |
| I think a new law (or even amendment?) that says each bill can only pertain to one issue and one issue alone would be better. That would keep the power in Congress and force them to put any pork spending in its own bill so everyone can vote it down. This process of attaching BS to important bills has seriously corrupted the legislative process. |
I disagree. If otherwise good legislation has junk added on (Like they always try to sneak in) and the POTUS vetos it, the congress should be able to override it. IF it is actually worth it, and not just some pork barrel bullshit that was slipped in, bringing it out into the open for debate should be a good thing. The government is out of control and any new ideas that keep them honest are good ones, IMO. Just because a line is vetoed, doesn't mean it's dead. Just highlighted and allowed to stand or fall on it's own merit, not because it was slipped in the back door. I highly doubt the "Bridge to nowhere" in Alaska would have survived such scrutiny... Food for thought. |