NationStates Jolt Archive

The Line Item Veto

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Line Item Veto Power for any US President Democrat or Republican.

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.

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 spending in supplementary clauses attached to appropriations bills that included vital spending measures, which had to be signed or vetoed in entirety.

In government, the line-item veto is the power of an executive to veto parts of a bill, usually budget appropriations. This enables an executive to nullify specific provisions of a bill, rather than only being able to approve or veto a bill in its entirety.

President Bush is now seeking line Item Veto Power to limit the deficit. Feb 10,2004.

Line-item veto may be revived Feb 10, 2004
By Klaus Marre


President Bush is seeking line-item veto power in an effort to curtail congressional spending and reduce the debt, and one senior White House adviser expressed confidence that the president can be given the authority without violating the Constitution.

Bush’s budget proposal would allow the president to “reject new appropriations, new mandatory spending, or limited grants of tax benefits (to 100 or fewer beneficiaries) whenever the president determines the spending or tax benefits are not essential government priorities.”

The line-item veto would be tied to deficit spending, with any savings achieved going toward debt reduction.

patrick g. ryan
President Bush is now seeking line-item veto power to limit the deficit.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Josh Bolten, director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), told the Senate Budget Committee last week: “Our lawyers are confident that a renewed line-item proposal could be crafted that would withstand” constitutional challenge in the courts.

An administration official said the line-item veto would be “an important tool to help keep spending under control.”

The White House plans to work with Congress to find the “most appropriate way” to craft legislation, the administration official said, pointing out that the issue has a constitutional history.

Legislation giving the president line-item veto authority passed in 1996, but in 1998 the Supreme Court ruled it unconstitutional in a 6-3 decision with Justices Antonin Scalia, Stephen Breyer and Sandra Day O’Connor dissenting. The makeup of the court has not changed since then.

The majority said in its decision: “We do not lightly conclude that [enacting a line-item veto] was unauthorized by the Constitution. We have, however, twice had full argument and briefing on the question and have concluded that our duty is clear.”

Having already decided to strike the law, the Supreme Court did not rule on whether the legislation “impermissibly disrupts the balance of powers among the three branches of government.”

Most states grant their governors some form of line-item veto, and last year the Arizona Supreme Court decided not to rule on a case that challenged the governor’s line-item veto power.

In 1996, Republicans strongly supported the line-item veto legislation, with some Democrats vigorously fighting it.

Sen. Elizabeth Dole (R-N.C.), whose husband, former Sen. Bob Dole (R-Kan.), sponsored the previous line-item veto legislation, last year introduced a resolution that would amend the Constitution to grant the president line-item veto authority.

A similar resolution also has been introduced in the House by Reps. Robert Andrews (D-N.J.) and Todd Platts (R-Pa.).

Sen. Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.), who challenged the previous law but was denied standing in court, last week indicated that he opposes Congress’s giving away its power to spend.

“We had that same thing” last year when the Senate gave the president its power to declare war in the Iraq resolution, Byrd said, adding that it was a “shameful, disgraceful thing for the Senate to do.”

“Looks like they want us to do the same thing when it comes to the power of the purse,” Byrd said.

In 1996, Sen. Bill Frist (R-Tenn.), now the majority leader, Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle (D-S.D.) and Rep. J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.), now Speaker, voted for the line-item veto bill. Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), now House minority leader, opposed it.

This power was giving brifly to President Clinton.

I know the Poll results Percentages will be split between USA and not USA, therefore not giving us an acurate USA percentage of support or not.

So we are going to have to do a little math to figure that out.

But I felt the need to include the others in the poll, there votes and views on The Line Item Veto in the USA or thier
Nation of Origin are welcomed.

I would most certainly support Line Item Veto power for any president.

I'm tired of important legislation being passed that has billions of dollars of pork added to it.

I'm tired of important legislation NOT being passed because it has billions of dollars of pork added to it.

Perhaps it would encourage Congress to be more responsible when they draft legislation.

Finally, it would encourage the average American to pay more attention to the fiscal policies of past and current presidents. We'll be able to tell where the President encourages spending and where spending is discouraged.

I oppose the line-item veto, but not because I oppose what Bush is trying to do. I just want to limit the executive as much as possible.

I oppose the line item veto because it would destroy one of the most important aspects of the legislative process, the compromise that must be reached before a bill is approved by congress. Lets compare the current situation with the situation under a system with line item veto.

There is a contentious bill that the republican party feels very strongly about. The democrats oppose the bill but are willing to hammer out a compromise by inserting certain provisions into the bill before voting for it. Perhaps provisions to safeguard civil rights or some other such provisions. After much haggling and political wrangling, a compromise is reached and the bill is passed and handed to the president to be signed. The president now either signs the compromise bill or vetos it.

Now, assume the same thing happens but the president has line item veto power. This time around, the republicans agree to all of the democrat's compromise demands just like before. Except this time the president vetos all of the compromise additions the democrats added to the bill and now the bill passes but no longer resembles the compromise that was agreed upon by the legislature.

Knowing that the above could easily happen, compromises would rarely be sought. Now, if the republican party wants to pass that bill then they must convince the democrats to vote for it as-is because the democrats know that compromise means nothing when all of their additions could be discarded by the president.

This creates needless problems. The system is better the way it is. If the president thinks there is too much pork, then he should veto the whole bill.

Ah, but if he vetoes the bill, Congress can put it through a 2/3 majority and make it law.

This gives the President power over spending money on frivolous stuff in Congress, like a senator's vacation in Palm Springs.

Ah, but if he vetoes the bill, Congress can put it through a 2/3 majority and make it law.

This gives the President power over spending money on frivolous stuff in Congress, like a senator's vacation in Palm Springs.

A 2/3 majority is incredibly difficult to obtain. Id rather risk the unlikely chance that a bill filled with needless pork overcomes a veto than the extremely likely probability that presidents will begin using the line item frivolously to nullify important safeguards or compromises built into bills.

A 2/3 majority is incredibly difficult to obtain. Id rather risk the unlikely chance that a bill filled with needless pork overcomes a veto than the extremely likely probability that presidents will begin using the line item frivolously to nullify important safeguards or compromises built into bills.

Ah, but he can't. It only applies to bills concerning spending.

Ah, but he can't. It only applies to bills concerning spending.

Many important safeguards or compromises may involve spending.

Example:

Congress reaches the following agreement:"OK, we'll give you that big tax cut for the rich, but we are increasing funding for schools by 5%"

President does the following: "Let's keep the tax cut but veto this 5% increase in funding to schools"

The president could do that, but honestly. Which one would commit political suicide like that?

The president could do that, but honestly. Which one would commit political suicide like that?

Most politicians are slippery enough to get out of any negative repercussions of vetoing such things. Also, a president on his second term could do it readily without much worries. But keep in mind, even if the president chose not to do this, it is the fact that he could that has the most impact, it encourages resistance to any bills you dont like rather than an honest attempt to reach a compromise. Thus, it is bad for the system in general. Id rather have pork than ruin the system in this way.

I would love to have the line item veto back (thank you SCOTUS), but it is a clear violation of the Constitution, with regards to the Seperation of Powers.

Remember one year ago when John Kerry supported a line-item veto and George W Bush opposed it? Notice who reversed his position?

Remember one year ago when John Kerry supported a line-item veto and George W Bush opposed it? Notice who reversed his position?
Flip....flop?

hey wait, that article is dated February 2004! That means George W Bush went from opposing the line-item veto in 2003 to supporting it in early 2004 to opposing it after that

hey wait, that article is dated February 2004! That means George W Bush went from opposing the line-item veto in 2003 to supporting it in early 2004 to opposing it after that
Flip flop.... flip flop?

Flip....flop?

I used to have a pair of flip-flops, but back then, we called them "thongs".

Amazing how the English language changes, eh?

Imagine telling people now that we used to wear "thongs" on our feet. :D

Flip flop.... flip flop?

Nah, it's more like flip flop.....flop flip.

I used to have a pair of flip-flops, but back then, we called them "thongs".

Amazing how the English language changes, eh?

Imagine telling people now that we used to wear "thongs" on our feet. :D
I live in Australia, we do. The looks you see from American tourists when bars try to explain why you cannot wear "thongs" inside the bar.