bush is the best reason to NEVER allow the executive branch to have the line item veto

[still_one]

In fact Congress should make it very clear that this administration violated one thing after another, including the IWR, which clearly states that before we attack Iraq, it must be approved by the UN. They never got that approval, and even though Congress dropped the ball by not holding this administration's feet to the fire, it will NOT HAPPEN AGAIN

[lisa58]

1. Wasn't the Line Item Veto declared unconstitutional...

...by the Supreme Court when Clinton got it passed?

[Kagemusha]

2. Supposedly that's why it'd require a constitutional amendment

or something.

I agree with the poster. The idea stinks. And this situation demonstrates exactly why it would be a divestment of Congress' power over the purse, greatly aggrandizing Executive power.

[still_one]

3. From my memory Clinton wanted it, but it never got that far, and if it did

Congress would have voted it down

Clinton was wrong about that, and wrong about communications act which help facilitate the destruction of the fairness doctrine reagan had started

[aquart]

4. Yup. He sure was.

[sabbat hunter]

5. line item veto in NYS

can only be used for budgetary matters, I think that is how clinton was allowed to use it. i would support that as long as it could be overridden with a supermajority of votes in the house and senate.


i supported a budgetary line item veto under clinton and it is still a good idea IMHO.

[jwirr]

6. Budgetary items include health care, food programs and welfare.

Bush would have been able to do even more damage to the safety net with a line item veto. I am deadly against that. There has to be a better/safer way to stop pork barrel spending.

[Richard Steele]

7. I agree. "Limiting" it to the budget is no limit at all. nm

[wain]

8. He'd never use it.

In six years has he ever vetoed anything?

[sabbat hunter]

9. once

i think he has used his veto once while in office. last year.