Should governors have Line Item Veto?

[Toots]

If people here say a President should not have it what do they say about Governors having it. Almost all governors do have it and it works quite well. Myself I really hate having special little perks hidden away in must pass bills so they can have a bridge to nowhere or some such crap. To me it makes a ton of sense to have line item veto and if the Congress can mount the two thirds vote needed to override the veto then the item should stay. I realize it may be used in a partisan fashion especially by Republicans but it still makes good sense. At least it does for the Governors so I fail to see why it wouldn't for the President.

[RoyGBiv]

1. No, no, and no ...

No executive should have any power to pick individual pieces of legislation to approve or not approve. The *legislature* makes laws which the executive has the authority to accept and then enforce or reject entirely. In the latter case, the legislature has the opportunity to override a veto or remake the legislation so it is acceptable to the executive.

Line item veto is a method to madness, one more avenue to strengthening the executive.

[Nikki Stone 1]

2. They can veto the lines but not the words on them...How 'bout that?

:evilgrin:

[uppityperson]

3. No

the 3 parts need to be able to check and balance each other. Line item veto gives executive too much power, as does executive saying who gets to be judicial people.

[bluestateguy]

4. I would say no, in my state

It's not for me to say, however, if another state's constitution wants to permit it. There is no violation of the US Constitution in a state's governor having the line-item veto, but it's bad policy.

[Donkeykick]

5. Might...

as well have a dictatorship!:wtf:

[stop the bleeding]

6. the difference is: State Constitutions require these Governors to have

a balanced budget, the US Constitution does not. Heard this on NPR this morning on the way to work.


Big difference.


Hope this helps.