Time to re-look at the Line-Item Veto?

[R/T Hemi]

Time to re-look at the Line-Item Veto?
With the current short bus circus going on in Washington as the legislature fights over a budget, I'm wondering if it's not time to re-look at the Presidential Line-Item Veto. The LIV gave the President the power to strike certain provisions of a bill as it sat on his desk for signature. If you remember, SCOTUS struck down the LIV about 10 (or so) years ago.

After watching congress fight over the budget, with all the crappy stuff they want to stick in the bill, it's no wonder the government can't reach an agreement. The advantage of the LIV is that the President can eliminate the fat, however, if vetoed, the veto could still be overridden by a 2/3 vote of congress

Time to seek a constitutional amendment for a LIV?

[stebo0728]

Ive advocated the line item veto ever since I knew what it was. Im totally in agreement. As long as we are going to do business the way we do, with inordinate amounts of line items being crammed into each bill, what better "scalpel" to use than a line item veto?

EDIT - The next best thing I guess is for the President to completely veto a bill, and provide some feedback as to why, like maybe "ok guys, vetoed because of subsection A, take it out and I'm ready to sign". If subsection A is so important, then override the veto. Of course really, the best option in my mind, is dont worry about a line item veto, pass some sort of ordinance that prevents these treat bag bills from originating in the first place. Deal with one issue, one bill.

[IBCoupe]

Don't Presidents normally say why they're vetoing things? Were President Obama to veto a budget proposal that includes ideological riders, wouldn't we all know he was doing it because of the ideological riders? Isn't that the point of plugging them in there? Veto-bait?

I'm okay with the LIV being unconstitutional. Make Congress do it's damned job.

[AZhitman]

I'm with IB on this one.... it just provides more partisan hack-fodder if POTUS has to do all the heavy lifting.

Piss on Congress. BOTH sides are loaded with a$$hats and clowns. I have a higher opinion of the POTUS than I do that collective bunch of cretins.

[heliochrome85]

I'm with IB on this one.... it just provides more partisan hack-fodder if POTUS has to do all the heavy lifting.

Piss on Congress. BOTH sides are loaded with a$$ and clowns. I have a higher opinion of the POTUS than I do that collective bunch of cretins.

TRUTH

[szh]

I'm with IB on this one.... it just provides more partisan hack-fodder if POTUS has to do all the heavy lifting.

Piss on Congress. BOTH sides are loaded with a$$ and clowns. I have a higher opinion of the POTUS than I do that collective bunch of cretins.

Agreed on both comments ...

Z

[AZhitman]

I question the sanity of offering an "easy way out" for these douchebags... Why should the POTUS have to mediate their idiocy? I'm not trying to be a jackass here, but didn't that thought fly through?

...I'd be a LOT more defensive of anyone holding out until something is REMOVED from a spending bill than someone who is holding out to have something ADDED.

I think we've already established that some kittens might have to be sacrificed for the greater good, and the bleating and whining needs to cease. Nothing is sacred, everyone needs to sacrifice, and it might not be *fair*. Bummer. Our kids will thank us.

[szh]

Our kids will thank us.

I sure hope so ...

Right now, I am very concerned about the legacy of "future broke" government that we are leaving them. When all the hoopla about bail-outs and spending was happening in 2008 and 2009 and 2010, I railed against the short-term thinking - including writing to my Congressperson (inept as she is!), with no response except a form letter.

We have dug our own hole (grave?) here.

Z

[stebo0728]

Well my main support for the LIV comes from the clumped up loot pinata nature of the bills written these days. Ideally bills should deal with more singular issues, and be more logically constructed. In that case, the LIV would not even be necessary. Im not sure, maybe IB would like to expound, as to what makes the LIV idea unconstitutional, unless maybe its that it makes the Executive part of legislative process, but then, doesnt the signing alone do that in a way? I guess I just like the idea of being able to garnish inflated bills, but then I guess I can understand that maybe its not the job of the executive to decide which parts are good and which parts arent once Congress has passed it.

Sorta developed that as I went there a bit

[szh]

Bills have always had multiple stuff attached - usually unrelated to the title of the bill or law.

Par for the course for politicians to sneak in pet projects into larger legislation ...

Z

[AZhitman]

Until they all quit stroking each other off, no one's REALLY gonna be opposed to pork.

My point (and I think Isaac's as well) was that when something needs to come OUT, Congress should be grown up about it and come to an understanding without outside intervention. I oppose pretty much ALL "additions" as a matter of course - You want more $ for something, then you need to introduce legislation that supports THAT request - no more back-dooring the public.

[R/T Hemi]

But the fact is it doesn't get done. It doesn't get done because Fred won't vote for it unless Bubba adds, to the bill, the little part about building a statue of Fred at the courthouse. So Fred refuses to budge, and Bubba doesn't want the damn statue. And of course, the American people get screwed. Let Obama take the red pencil out and have at it.

[AZhitman]

...that's, then, a dictatorship.

Not much need for Congress if POTUS can override their decisions.

Maybe the REAL reason Fred won't vote for it is because Bubba's stupid and puts idiotic stuff in it. Checks and balances.

Besides in your example, POTUS could shove his red pencil up his a$$, because he's not vetoing anything. No funding for a statue = nothing to LIV.

I have a better idea: Pay attention to WHO wants / doesn't want WHAT. If it collides with your ideology, VOTE that person out. If you simply follow party lines, you get what you deserve - incompetence.

[szh]

...that's, then, a dictatorship.

Not much need for Congress if POTUS can override their decisions.

I have always felt/said that the best form of government for apathetic people is a Benign Dictatorship. Unfortunately, Dictators have a way of letting it go to their heads!

The Caliphates in the Middle East had an interesting approach centuries ago ... would not fly today perhaps: The Caliph was elected, by a council of 40 people, and the election was for life (sorta like our Supreme Court judges). And, it was not a hereditary succession - after the Caliph died, a new one was elected, and it was not necessarily the progeny of the old.

Z

[R/T Hemi]

...that's, then, a dictatorship.

Not much need for Congress if POTUS can override their decisions.

Maybe the REAL reason Fred won't vote for it is because Bubba's stupid and puts idiotic stuff in it. Checks and balances.

Besides in your example, POTUS could shove his red pencil up his a$$, because he's not vetoing anything. No funding for a statue = nothing to LIV.

I have a better idea: Pay attention to WHO wants / doesn't want WHAT. If it collides with your ideology, VOTE that person out. If you simply follow party lines, you get what you deserve - incompetence.

Good idea. Let's just continue getting nothing done and when November comes, we can choose from a list of likely improvements like Sarah Palin or Michelle Bachman who, obviously, will straighten the mess out.

This whole budget thing is a great example of how well congress handles legislation. 5 more hours and the big red white and blue machine shuts down. I think I'd prefer Obama and his red pencil to what we're getting.

[IBCoupe]

Supreme Court reasoned, when it struck down the line-item veto, that giving the President that power would give him the power to pass a law that Congress didn't write. He's not allowed to add things in, and he's not allowed to take things out. The executive is supposed to execute the laws, not write them. After all, that's why libertarians and constitutional originalists hate administrative agencies.

Congress shouldn't be able to give away its Constitutional powers, except by Constitutional Amendment. The line-item veto waltzes right across the separation of powers, and though it would most definitely be legal if we had a constitutional amendment to establish it, it wouldn't be wise.

The systemic check on Congress that stops them from being complete douchebags isn't a stronger executive, it's a stronger electorate. Go vote.

[IBCoupe]

...that's, then, a dictatorship.

Not much need for Congress if POTUS can override their decisions.

I have always felt/said that the best form of government for apathetic people is a Benign Dictatorship. Unfortunately, Dictators have a way of letting it go to their heads!

The Caliphates in the Middle East had an interesting approach centuries ago ... would not fly today perhaps: The Caliph was elected, by a council of 40 people, and the election was for life (sorta like our Supreme Court judges). And, it was not a hereditary succession - after the Caliph died, a new one was elected, and it was not necessarily the progeny of the old.

Z

Lifetime appointment isn't the only benefit granted to Supreme Court justices. Their pay can't be docked, and they can only be removed for bad behavior. It's a check on the Legislature - if the Court is to be the portion of the government determining the limits of the other portions of the government, it's not wise to give the Legislature undue influence over their decisions. That's just begging for a power grab.

I'm pretty sure that's not what the Caliphates had in mind, though.

[AZhitman]

Good idea. Let's just continue getting nothing done and when November comes, we can choose from a list of likely improvements like Sarah Palin or Michelle Bachman who, obviously, will straighten the mess out.

This whole budget thing is a great example of how well congress handles legislation. 5 more hours and the big red white and blue machine shuts down. I think I'd prefer Obama and his red pencil to what we're getting.

I understand your frustration, but there's no need for a tantrum, or to try to turn this into a partisan issue. Leave the sexy retards out of it.

See, you're looking for an easy way out. There isn't one, short of pressuring those dips***s that you (and I) voted for to pull their heads out of their buttholes, remember WHO they work for, and quit being spoiled punks.

EDIT: I just read IB's post. And I support the young man's message.