Bush to Propose Line - Item Veto Legislation (President Hillary will love

[wakeme2008]

this ;)

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/national/AP-Line-Item-Veto.html

March 5, 2006
Bush to Propose Line - Item Veto Legislation
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

Filed at 9:53 p.m. ET

WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Bush plans to send proposed legislation to Congress on Monday that would allow him to control spending by vetoing specific items in larger bills, a Bush administration official said.

..cut..

President Clinton got that wish in 1996, when the new reform-minded Republican majority in the House helped pass a line-item veto law.

Two years later, the Supreme Court declared the law unconstitutional because it violated the principle that Congress, and not the executive branch, holds the power of the purse.

..that about it but a little more at link...

IMHO, Even if * thinks his two new SC Judges will support him.. I am not sure the Repugs in Congress would even pass it in the first place...

[merwin]

1. It'll never pass. It's already been declared unconstitutional.

[Lone_Star_Dem]

4. That was my first thought. too

Why would he even propose this? This doesn't make sense to me.

[depakid]

10. Simple, really

Neither Bush nor ANYONE on the far right has an ounce of respect for the Constitution or the rule of law. And since there's no oppostion party to speak of, why not try to push the envelope?

I suspect it doesn't make sense because you're still under the assumption that we're dealing with reasonable and responsible people here.

Nothing could be further from the case.

[primavera]

19. It makes perfect sense

Consider the timing. Right now, the shrub is having increasing problems keeping the Republican rank and file in line; his hold over Congress is slipping. The chief function of the line item veto is to give the president the ability to selectively reward or punish individual legislators by giving him direct control over federal spending programs which affect that individual's constituents. If you tow the party line, the president can make sure that the proposed base closure in so and so's district never goes through. Conversely, if you fuck with him, he can ensure that your local school system doesn't see a dime of federal aid this year. Good luck getting re-elected when your public schools had to shut their doors for lack of funding on your watch. With his grasp over Congress weakening, he has to do something to re-fortify his hold. What could be more logical than to re-introduce the line item veto?

[OneBlueSky]

11. it wasn't declared unconstitutional by THIS court . . .

the Bush appointees may well have a different take on things . . . anyone know what the vote was that decided this issue? . . .

[hang a left]

13. 6 to 3

snip>

In a 6 to 3 decision, the court held that the line-item veto law violates a constitutional requirement that legislation be passed by both houses of Congress and presented in its entirety to the president for signature or veto.

Passage of the legislation in 1996 and its implementation in 1997 climaxed more than a century of struggle by presidents for this new authority. It was a rare unilateral yielding of power by Congress to the chief executive, prompted by Congress's increasing concern over its own lack of fiscal discipline. President Clinton, who had line-item veto powers as governor of Arkansas, signed the bill with relish and moved quickly, although cautiously, to begin trimming spending bills.

But the judicial branch, looking to constitutional rather than political or fiscal priorities, took a far dimmer view of the power swap.

Unlike earlier laws giving the president discretionary spending authority, "this act gives the president the unilateral power to change the text of duly enacted statutes," Justice John Paul Stevens wrote for the majority.

Such line-item vetoes are "the functional equivalent of partial repeals of acts of Congress," he said. But "there is no provision in the Constitution that authorizes the president to enact, to amend or to repeal statutes," he added.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/longterm/supcourt/stories/wp062698.htm

[onenote]

20. majority of current court ruled against line item veto

Stevens, Kennedy, Souter, Thomas, and Ginsburg. (The sixth vote was Rehnquist). Scalia and O'Connor concurred in part and dissented in part. Breyer dissented.

[fujiyama]

15. Overturning a previous ruling

just a few years ago would be a blatant act of partisanship on the part of the court. I honestly don't know how it would be reasoned to overturn such a recent precedent.

[mom cat]

18. Reason does not matter any more, nor does the law. The imperial

presidency is the wave of the future.

[Trillo]

2. I've thought that eliminating a portion of the parliamentary system

that part where legislators vote for something in a bill, but also vote for other phrases they don't agree with, should be discarded.

Every single phrase in every single bill should have a checkmark next to it. If that phrase (line item) gets enough votes, it passes, even if 90% of the rest of the same bill, does not.

My point is that giving this power of line-item to the President, without also giving it to every single legislator, is another usurpation of the balance of powers favoring the Executive Branch.

[Warpy]

5. You are on the right track

because too much unconscionable legislation has been added as riders to necessary legislation and there has been no way to vote for or agains that rider separately. That's where the real problem is, and our tax code would be a quarter the size it is now had it been in place from the beginning.

There is no reason a piece of legislation like an appropriations bill should be loaded down with favors to fat cat donors or restrictions on civil liberties for the rest of us. Congress need to vote on each provision of each bill on its own merits, not pass a pile of unrelated and often damaging legislation because the title part of it is necessary.

The change needs to be made at the Congressional level. It's already been declared unconstitutional at the executive level.

Then again, there no bad idea in the world that a conservative will give up on.

[Canuckistanian]

8. Exactly! Finally someone understands this

This practice of adding odious "riders" and "add-ons" to perfectly acceptable bills cannot be allowed to stand if you want true democracy.

It gives the ruling party license to pass anything they want under a smokescreen of national defence or routine budgetary measures.

And it's the explanation behind Kerry's "I voted for the $87 billion before I voted against it".
He was objecting to language that was added to the bill, not the named bill itself.

[hang a left]

14. That is a great idea.

No more monstrous pieces of legislation. A bill for every phrase. Should be a campaign slogan. Not very catchy, but I like it.

[salin]

3. More from the "Congress and the Constitution is Unnecessary" Prez.

While the idea of a line-item veto for the president has been around since the Reagan years, it was passed then declared unconstitutional. His pushing this demonstrates either his profound ignorance (per the history of the issue) or his true arrogance and belief in tyranny vs a govt with checks and balances per several branches of govt.

[bluestateguy]

6. Good

President Hillary Clinton will have LOTS of fun with it: cancelling pork projects to all bright red states.

[wakeme2008]

7. LOL that is why it will not pass in the first place

I can just see Frist being told "President Hillary will love the idea of a line item veto" :)

[FloridaPat]

9. Those darn Democrats are getting too much of that liberal crap

put in the budget. This way he can get rid of everything but the military spending.

[onenote]

21. every president wants the line item veto

Including Clinton, who got it before it was struck down as unconsitutional

onenote

[radfringe]

12. On the wider public view

it's also a matter of trust

Do you trust a president to use such a power responsibly? President "x", "y" and "z" may use it in a responsibly manner, but do trust president "w" to do the same?

[remfan]

16. May not be about getting it past SCOTUS, may be more of a political move

The GOP needs to do a few things to maintain control of congress this time around. They need to make sure they get 2 of their 3 base constituencies (social - gay adoption, economic - this line item veto, security - they're not showing up this year) to the polls, they need to make sure Dems are running on 1 or 2 issues that they are not talking about (makes Dems look out of touch and the GOP engaged), and they need at least one issue that resonates with the 'middle' American voter.

They don't need a victory to win on an issue, they need only to create the appearance of trying to win and they often prefer the loss because it provides a good spin.

They've been talking a lot about earmarks which is a bipartisan thing, so bringing up the line item veto now gives them a) something to point to that can be all about Dems if they spin it properly, b) can be called something that Dems supported (Clinton!) which will make middle America think it's a good thing, and c) doesn't have to be won to be an effective issue for them.

Always remember that they don't care about governing, they only care about maintaining their hold on power, so anything they introduce, especially in an election year and especially when the WH is polling in the 30s, is POLITICAL. They only need to make it appear as if they are concerned with "out of control spending" to win on this. It can be tied to privatizing SS, cutting 'entitlements', the great conservative 'smaller' government mantra, and 'reform'.

[HuffleClaw]

17. they sure love their little 'do-over's'

i suppose they think their new pet supreme court justices will rubber stamp this?