[tomder55]

I asked this question on one of the law boards about the line item veto debate that Rudi and Mitt engaged in last night.
https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/other-...to-139152.html


The question is about the constitutionality of the line item veto (SCOTUS decided against it) .

Would you support a constitutional amendment to allow a Presidential line item veto ,or do you think that it would concede too much of the legislative powers to the executive. Was Rudi wrong to oppose the line item veto, or was he right because he was acting in the best interests of the city he led ?

[Dark_crow]

I'll side with SCOTUS…in fact I'm for limiting the power of the executive. I say limit power of a president to rule by executive order—the president's use of executive orders to legislate is simply not acceptable.

[tomder55]

The use of executive order goes back to Washington's first term. I'm not sure but I imagine the practice has already been tested in court .

If you ask me a true Montesquieu separation would've been to give the power to spend to the House and the power to tax to the Senate (with an over-ride provision granted to the state legislatures) .

[ETWolverine]

I happen to be in favor of line-item veto for the President.

First, I think it would act as a major block against pork-barrel spending and earmark spending.

Second, I believe that it would speed up the legislative process. If the Presidnt doesn't like one particular part of a bill, he can eliminate that part of the bill without having to send the ENTIRE bill back to Congress for approval. In the contemporary context, Bush would have been able to pass the military appropriations bill without having to veto it over the "spending for spinach" provision. So, I'm in favor of the line item veto, if only for that reason.

On the other hand, I can understand the fear it would cause to some. While it would not increase the President's ability to write law, it would give him the aility to change the intent of laws already passed by Congress.

For instance (and this is an extreme example having nothing to do with reality), the President cannot implement a law that says "People shall own cars" even if he wants to.

However, If Congress were to pass a law that says "People shall NOT own cars", and the President disagreed with this law, right now his only option is to veto the law.

With the line item veto, The President would be able to do this: "People shall not own cars." Since the bill already passed Congress, and since The President is only using the line item veto, it can be argued that the law " Since the bill already passed Congress, and since The President is only using the line item veto, it can be argued that the law " would now be in effect... even though Congress's intent would be the exact opposite.

I understand the fear that the line-item-veto invokes in some, and I understand how it can be abused. But I believe that the advantages of having it outweigh the disadvantages.

Elliot

[tomder55]

The dispute that Rudy had at the time of his challenge was because he was collecting taxes from Medicaid providers that no other State was permitted to do. The provision in the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 gave NY preferential treatment under the Medicaid law .President Clinton used the line item veto to strike it from the bill. NYC was going to lose $2.6Billion in tax revenues as a result.

SCOTUS ruled that the President does not have the right to nullify parts of a bill because the Constitution gives Congress the power to go through the painful deliberative process to make a law.

Scalia in dissent said that the Constitution prevents the President from canceling a law that Congress has not authorized him to cancel.But through the line item veto law they passed ,they by extension gave him that authority .He cited various trade laws that Congress had given such authority to the President in the past like the Tariff Act of 1890 which gave the President the authority to "suspend, by proclamation to that effect" certain of its provisions if he determined that other countries were imposing "reciprocally unequal and unreasonable" duties. He says further that in a challenge to that act ;SCOTUS sided with the President's authority .

But Scalia was in a small minority in this case. Even Chief Justice Rhenquist and Justice Thomas sided with the majority . The way I read the decision they leave no room for a LIV act without a Constitutional Amendment.

I have to say ;in the debate Tues . Rudy clearly trounced Mitt on this issue. He turned it into an attack on the Clintons ,on Romney's understanding of the issue ,and boasted of his claim to a strict constructionist view. Perhaps the President should have the authority of the line item veto . But Constitutionally he doesn't . I can't find a way to give him that through a rewriting of the law as Mitt suggests without that constitutional amendment .