news.yahoo.com— The Republican-led House is trying to give President Barack Obama the line-item veto, a power over the purse that has been sought by both Republican and Democratic presidents.
Feb 8, 2012View in Crawl 4
Line Item Veto is unconstitutional and the issue was dealt with by the SCOTUS a while ago. Every president since Washington has lamented that they wanted it, but there's no provision for such in the constitution. This won't fly.
Ever since Jefferson decided buying gunboats for a war that didn't happen was stupid and cancelled the contract, Constitution or not , Presidents have been using that precedent. Plus there -was- a long precedent of the President being allowed to unfund portions of the Federal Bureaucracy even when Congress makes the funds available. These two precedents are the only real power the president has. (Well sure he gets to meet with queens and stuff at fancy get-togethers, not that he can anything but smile a lot.)
It was expected that as President he would be the most influential person in the country, with moral power to influence and move people to goals even against Congress. Nixon ruined that thoroughly.
From the sound of it, this won't end the unrelated riders. It seems to be crafted to only apply strictly to the budget of items in a bill. As long as a rider makes no mention of how it is paid for, it is free from the veto. A tax break or grant could be vetoed with it, but not a policy change or something like an oil pipeline.
It won't happen. In a sense it shouldn't happen either.
Congress represents their respective State. They aren't doing their job if they aren't "representing" the interests of those that voted for them. Assuming of course that Congress keeps the welfare of the country in mind... Assuming after special interests buy them they have a mind of their own.
"Assuming of course that Congress keeps the welfare of the country in mind... Assuming after special interests buy them they have a mind of their own."
This is where the problem lies, because we simply can't make a rational decision with this assumption. What we need is some way of quickly, effectively, and publicly targeting and removing government representatives who no longer represent their electorate. As it stands, corrupt politicians can sit and fester in public office for decades because the public isn't made aware of their actions. This is the fault of our pathetic excuse for "news" in this country*, as well as stereotypical American apathy.
*The "news" doesn't report on politicians corrupt behavior because the people who own these media companies are the same people who pad the pockets of the politicians. It's a serious problem that represents a grave threat to democratic equality, and the democratic process in general.
Dugg, but I take exception to your characterization of Americans as apathetic. Misinformed, by media laziness, failure to adapt to the Internet by the media, corruption and lack of protection of the media by SCOTUS that I agree with.
Long overdue and sensible to send the vetoed line back for a up or down vote.
Congress is supposed to have control of the budget, but the President (starting with Jefferson, ending with Regan) was supposed be able to rethink spending for something clearly not needed.
Finally someone who read the article, the veto would give the President the ability to send a specific budget item back to be voted up or down, it's not really a veto so much as a "Are you really sure about this", if they vote they want to keep it the president will have to veto the whole bill to get rid of the line item. Any money saved would be put towards the deficit as opposed to reallocated. Seems pretty reasonable assuming the president and his staff read the bills more thoroughly than the people who submit them.
It won't happen. Congress needs the riders to push narrow agendas and provide federal funds to their constituents and campaign contributors.
This is just more partisan political game playing. Note that approval by Congress is necessary for any vetos. Why would Republicans in the House give President Obama line item veto power?
It's just another opportunity for them to criticize anything the President does, just like the meaningless nonsense of requiring congressional votes on debt limit increases.
fudgefactor7Feb 8, 2012
Line Item Veto is unconstitutional and the issue was dealt with by the SCOTUS a while ago. Every president since Washington has lamented that they wanted it, but there's no provision for such in the constitution. This won't fly.
Donuts4UFeb 9, 2012
Ever since Jefferson decided buying gunboats for a war that didn't happen was stupid and cancelled the contract, Constitution or not , Presidents have been using that precedent. Plus there -was- a long precedent of the President being allowed to unfund portions of the Federal Bureaucracy even when Congress makes the funds available. These two precedents are the only real power the president has. (Well sure he gets to meet with queens and stuff at fancy get-togethers, not that he can anything but smile a lot.)
It was expected that as President he would be the most influential person in the country, with moral power to influence and move people to goals even against Congress. Nixon ruined that thoroughly.
dirtyfriesFeb 8, 2012
It's too bad this is needed at all.
If Congress could pull their s**t together and stop attaching un-related riders to bills simply to carry and kill them, we wouldnt need this insanity.
langfordFeb 8, 2012
From the sound of it, this won't end the unrelated riders. It seems to be crafted to only apply strictly to the budget of items in a bill. As long as a rider makes no mention of how it is paid for, it is free from the veto. A tax break or grant could be vetoed with it, but not a policy change or something like an oil pipeline.
Donuts4UFeb 8, 2012
It won't happen. In a sense it shouldn't happen either.
Congress represents their respective State. They aren't doing their job if they aren't "representing" the interests of those that voted for them. Assuming of course that Congress keeps the welfare of the country in mind... Assuming after special interests buy them they have a mind of their own.
isaac7719Feb 8, 2012
"Assuming of course that Congress keeps the welfare of the country in mind... Assuming after special interests buy them they have a mind of their own."
This is where the problem lies, because we simply can't make a rational decision with this assumption. What we need is some way of quickly, effectively, and publicly targeting and removing government representatives who no longer represent their electorate. As it stands, corrupt politicians can sit and fester in public office for decades because the public isn't made aware of their actions. This is the fault of our pathetic excuse for "news" in this country*, as well as stereotypical American apathy.
*The "news" doesn't report on politicians corrupt behavior because the people who own these media companies are the same people who pad the pockets of the politicians. It's a serious problem that represents a grave threat to democratic equality, and the democratic process in general.
Donuts4UFeb 9, 2012
Dugg, but I take exception to your characterization of Americans as apathetic. Misinformed, by media laziness, failure to adapt to the Internet by the media, corruption and lack of protection of the media by SCOTUS that I agree with.
Donuts4UFeb 8, 2012
Long overdue and sensible to send the vetoed line back for a up or down vote.
Congress is supposed to have control of the budget, but the President (starting with Jefferson, ending with Regan) was supposed be able to rethink spending for something clearly not needed.
matthrFeb 9, 2012
Finally someone who read the article, the veto would give the President the ability to send a specific budget item back to be voted up or down, it's not really a veto so much as a "Are you really sure about this", if they vote they want to keep it the president will have to veto the whole bill to get rid of the line item. Any money saved would be put towards the deficit as opposed to reallocated. Seems pretty reasonable assuming the president and his staff read the bills more thoroughly than the people who submit them.
laborerFeb 9, 2012
Change?
norman619Feb 9, 2012
No they should not give the president this. It will be abused.
adaguyFeb 9, 2012
???????????????????????????
When Clinton had it, as you can see, he was unable to abuse it, because the republickin's kept overriding his vetos of spending bills.
jpurdyFeb 9, 2012
It won't happen. Congress needs the riders to push narrow agendas and provide federal funds to their constituents and campaign contributors.
This is just more partisan political game playing. Note that approval by Congress is necessary for any vetos. Why would Republicans in the House give President Obama line item veto power?
It's just another opportunity for them to criticize anything the President does, just like the meaningless nonsense of requiring congressional votes on debt limit increases.
gkiltzFeb 9, 2012
May work, or not!