• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

House votes to give Obama limited line-item veto

Mycroft

Mycroft

Genius is where you find it.
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 27, 2011
Messages
101,826
Reaction score
45,419
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
The House of Representatives voted to give President Barack Obama a limited line-item veto authority on Wednesday in a rare display of bipartisanship on bitterly divisive spending and budget issues.

The House voted 254-173, with 57 Democrats joining Republicans in favoring the bill, which allows the president to propose elimination of individual items in spending legislation and subject them to a separate, second vote by Congress.

read more at: House votes to give Obama limited line-item veto - Yahoo! News
Click to expand...

If this were not an election year, I suppose the Democrats in the Senate would be fasttracking this bill. Since there is a question as to who will be the next President, I predict the Senate will sit on this.
 
Wow, they actually let Obama do something? What will they think of next?
 
They should just give it to him. If they don't like what he is cutting then just vote no on the second pass and it won't happen. Although, I am not sure this goes around the Supreme Court ruling from 98.
 
soccerboy22 said:
They should just give it to him. If they don't like what he is cutting then just vote no on the second pass and it won't happen. Although, I am not sure this goes around the Supreme Court ruling from 98.
Click to expand...

I think it works:

A Republican-controlled Congress in 1996 gave Democratic President Bill Clinton a full line-item veto authority that required a two-thirds majority to override and reinsert spending measures.

But the Supreme Court ruled it unconstitutional in 1998, saying it took spending powers away from Congress.

The bill passed on Wednesday tries to get around the constitutional problem by subjecting vetoed items to a second vote in Congress.
Click to expand...

If this happens, IMO it will be Obama's greatest accomplishment.
 
Mycroft said:
If this were not an election year, I suppose the Democrats in the Senate would be fasttracking this bill. Since there is a question as to who will be the next President, I predict the Senate will sit on this.
Click to expand...


This is stupid and will bite them in the ass.No president should ever have a line item veto.
What I said in the past on the issue of line-item veto.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/polls/115680-should-president-have-line-item-veto-power-5.html
No.Because the president will just simply veto what ever he wants and keep what he wants.For example lets take a so called compromise on illegal immigration( if the American people are stupid enough to fall for another so called compromise) that involves amnesty for all the illegals,tax payer aid to help the illegals no longer be illegals , crack downs on the scum who hire illegals as well a crack down on the scum who aid illegals with sanctuary states and cities that aid illegals and a ban on tuition for illegals children. A president that supports amnesty will simply veto all the enforcement measures against illegal immigration such as the crack downs on scum who hire illegals and the scum who aid illegals with sanctuary state and city policies.A politician that is actually against illegal immigration will simply veto any amnesty provisions as well as anything else that encourages illegal immigration. A line item veto is a double edged sword. It hurts you if the president doesn't support what you support and it helps you if the president supports what you support.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/archives/11871-bush-pushes-congress-line-item-veto.html#post342163

The line-item veto sounds like a double edge sword.The good thing is that it could eliminate alot of pork,the bad thing is that congress and senate could come up with some comprimise and then that comprimise overturned.


For example they could come up with a comprimise that sent employers who hired illegals to prison and permanately took away their ability to own or operate a business and made felons,granted illegals amnesty,put a actual walls on the border,Guest worker programs.A president like Bush who is very proillegal would cut out the stiff punishments for emplyers who hire illegals and the wall on the border and keep everything else which is guest worker programs and amnesty for illegals.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
MaggieD said:
I think it works:



If this happens, IMO it will be Obama's greatest accomplishment.
Click to expand...

Obama's accomplishment???

This isn't HIS doing...it's the House Republicans with a little help from some Democrats. They want to drop this in his lap, but I don't think the Senate Democrats are going to give it to him.
 
Mycroft said:
Obama's accomplishment???

This isn't HIS doing...it's the House Republicans with a little help from some Democrats. They want to drop this in his lap, but I don't think the Senate Democrats are going to give it to him.
Click to expand...

This is every president's wetdream though. Being able to cross off what he doesn't like.
 
soccerboy22 said:
This is every president's wetdream though. Being able to cross off what he doesn't like.
Click to expand...


Yeah, in this case it would be cross off every conservative measure, and accept every progressive measure, then hit the cameras saying that conservatives won't work with him....


j-mac
 
Mycroft said:
If this were not an election year, I suppose the Democrats in the Senate would be fasttracking this bill. Since there is a question as to who will be the next President, I predict the Senate will sit on this.
Click to expand...

That won't be going anywhere. Congress gave Clinton the line item veto and SCOTUS ruled it unconstitutional.
 
The GOP supports it because one day when their man becomes President he will have the same power.

It's a power that should not exist. We have congressional voting for a reason.

This country is going to hell.
 
I think this is a setup perpetrated by the Republicans and a smart one, at that.

The Republicans don't think the Senate will act on this because they can't be sure that Obama will win re-election. That means that Reid will sit on this bill until after the election. The result is that the Republicans can point to the Senate Democrats as being obstructionists to a bill that their own President desires. This will do damage to the Democrats who are running for a Senate seat...increasing the possibility of the Republicans taking the Senate.

Isn't politics fun!!
 
I've always liked the line item veto. It calls attention to the ridiculous spending measures attached to important bills that urgently need to be passed. If more spending bills and laws were considered on their own merit it would stop a lot of stupdity in Congress.
 
Mycroft said:
Obama's accomplishment???

This isn't HIS doing...it's the House Republicans with a little help from some Democrats. They want to drop this in his lap, but I don't think the Senate Democrats are going to give it to him.
Click to expand...

Hopefully senate democrats don't give it to him. Its all good when your guy is in office and he is line item vetoing the stuff he and his party don't want and keeping everything he and has party wants, but its not all good when its the other guy and his party doing the same thing. This "the president will use it to cut waste" line is a load of garbage meant to sucker gullible people into supporting line item vetoes. If the president really wanted to cut waste then he would read the whole damn bill and veto the whole damn bill if there are some things in there he finds objectionable and tell senate and congress to work on another bill.
 
Last edited:
MaggieD said:
This is different. Read the link.
Click to expand...

I did read the link. What Congress is attempting to do will still be ruled unconstitutional, as it gives the president a say on how bills are crafted by Congress.
 
Okay...even though I don't think this bill will ever cross the President's desk, here's my take:

The problem we have here is that Congress sends the President a bill that is a combination of stuff he approves of and stuff he doesn't. The President is put in a "damned if he signs, damned if he doesn't" position. That's the way it is.

I see the solution as the PEOPLE calling Congress to account for their actions. Perhaps the People should demand and vote for Congressmen who will not send the President poisoned bills. Perhaps the People should take a more conscious interest in what their Congressmen are doing.

At any rate, the President does not need...nor does he deserve...any powers that are not enumerated in the Constitution. No matter what Party that President is from.
 
Ummm....

Didn't the Supreme Court strike down the line item veto as unconstitutional?

Here's a Wikipedia link discusing the limited line item veto.

Frankly, I don't see a difference between "limited" and "full" line item veto except that the bill as "lined out" would have to go back to Congress for a vote. In that case, it's really no different from what the President already does when he vetos a bill except under the Constitutional mechanism he has to attach a statement to the vetoed bill explaining why he vetoed such in the first place where upon Congress gets to revote on the proposed legislation again and can over-right the President's veto.

To such, I wonder if Congress gets to vote down a bill containing such "pen and ink line-outs" and then revote on the original bill, thus, overriding a Presidential limited line item veto much as Art 1, Sect 7 calls for?

Confused? So am I. (Guess it's time to once again do my homework and find this limited line item veto bill and study up on it alittle.)

EDIT: Just noticed MaggieD's link above. Thanks!

Also, to Mycroft and jamesrage,

I think your posts #12, 14 and 16 are all spot on! You both rather articulated the problems with this limited line item veto pretty much as I see it - as both a political "Catch-22" for any President, but in particular for this incumbant, and a cluster F-:soap as to its overall constitutionality on the grounds of encroachment once again on congressional enumerated powers.
 
Last edited:
Mycroft said:
I think this is a setup perpetrated by the Republicans and a smart one, at that.

The Republicans don't think the Senate will act on this because they can't be sure that Obama will win re-election. That means that Reid will sit on this bill until after the election. The result is that the Republicans can point to the Senate Democrats as being obstructionists to a bill that their own President desires. This will do damage to the Democrats who are running for a Senate seat...increasing the possibility of the Republicans taking the Senate.

Isn't politics fun!!
Click to expand...

On the other hand, if the GOP tries to start running on the "OTHER SIDE IS OBSTRUCTIONIST" argument, they're just going to highlight how they have thrown up roadblocks for nearly every single bill the Democrats have put up.
 
Deuce said:
On the other hand, if the GOP tries to start running on the "OTHER SIDE IS OBSTRUCTIONIST" argument, they're just going to highlight how they have thrown up roadblocks for nearly every single bill the Democrats have put up.
Click to expand...

Oh, I don't think it needs to be an obstructionist argument...rather a "we don't want to help Obama" argument.

I don't think the Senate Democrats who are running for election want to get painted with that...could affect how their own base sees them.
 
Mycroft said:
If this were not an election year, I suppose the Democrats in the Senate would be fasttracking this bill. Since there is a question as to who will be the next President, I predict the Senate will sit on this.
Click to expand...

They passed this during the Clinton administration, too. It's just as invalid now -- this requires a Constitutional amendment.
 
Mycroft said:
If this were not an election year, I suppose the Democrats in the Senate would be fasttracking this bill. Since there is a question as to who will be the next President, I predict the Senate will sit on this.
Click to expand...

That is fine because anything Hussein Obama vetoes the Congress has to approve......Not much of a veto if youask me
 
Deuce said:
On the other hand, if the GOP tries to start running on the "OTHER SIDE IS OBSTRUCTIONIST" argument, they're just going to highlight how they have thrown up roadblocks for nearly every single bill the Democrats have put up.
Click to expand...

The dems had both houses and the presidency for 2 years. Why didn't they get anything done then except a whole bunch of spending that has not been paid for.
 
I don't care what side of the aisle you are on I believe that all Presidents should have this ability. I'm sick and tired of hearing about some special interest group getting money whenever they pass a military spending bill even though that special interest group has NOTHING to do with the military. I especially hate the partisan talk from one group blaming the other group about "not caring for our troops" because they voted against a military spending bill even though it was the pork in it that the one group objected to and not the military spending.
 
Kal'Stang said:
I don't care what side of the aisle you are on I believe that all Presidents should have this ability. I'm sick and tired of hearing about some special interest group getting money whenever they pass a military spending bill even though that special interest group has NOTHING to do with the military. I especially hate the partisan talk from one group blaming the other group about "not caring for our troops" because they voted against a military spending bill even though it was the pork in it that the one group objected to and not the military spending.
Click to expand...

The only thing a line item veto will is grant the president the power to veto things he doesn't want and keep the things he does want. This does not in any shape or form mean the president will cut any pork.All it means is that if a president is a democrat then anything in the bill that republicans want will be vetoed and if the president is a republican then that means anything the democrats want will be vetoed. There are other ways to cut pork.Like one subject at a time law.
 
jamesrage said:
The only thing a line item veto will is grant the president the power to veto things he doesn't want and keep the things he does want. This does not in any shape or form mean the president will cut any pork.All it means is that if a president is a democrat then anything in the bill that republicans want will be vetoed and if the president is a republican then that means anything the democrats want will be vetoed. There are other ways to cut pork.Like one subject at a time law.
Click to expand...

This is true. But I am an optimist and I still hold out hope for a President that actually gives a damn about our country instead of him/herself.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom