View Poll Results: Should the President have "line-item veto" power?

Voters
44. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    22 50.00%
  • No

    19 43.18%
  • Undecided

    3 6.82%
Page 3 of 9 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 88

Thread: Should the President have "line-item veto" power?

  1. #21
    Phonetic Mnemonic ©
    radcen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Look to your right... I'm that guy.
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:00 AM
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    33,397

    Re: Should the President have "line-item veto" power?

    Quote Originally Posted by MaggieD View Post
    How about a trial period? Ha!
    You mean like a temporary tax cut?

    Anyway, regarding pork. One balancing factor, albeit a minor balancing factor, would be that the President is much more high-profile and easier to track, thus would be more prone to be held accountable for his veto choices. Theoretically, at least.

  2. #22
    Devourer of Poor Children
    DrunkenAsparagus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    DC
    Last Seen
    01-20-16 @ 04:07 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    4,496

    Re: Should the President have "line-item veto" power?

    This would essentially give the President power to virtually draft legislation, as he can alter it however he sees fit. This would greatly increase the power of an office that I feel already has too much power. It essentially throws the power of Congress almost entirely toward the President, who would no longer have to compromise with other branches of government.
    "Doubleplusungood"

    George Orwell

  3. #23
    Sage
    ksu_aviator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Fort Worth Texas
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:04 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    6,680
    Blog Entries
    10

    Re: Should the President have "line-item veto" power?

    I vote yes, with the provision that there is a Constitutional Amendment to make it legal.
    You, my brothers and sisters, were called to be free. But do not use your freedom to indulge the flesh; rather, serve one another humbly in love.For the entire law is fulfilled in keeping this one command: “Love your neighbor as yourself.”

  4. #24
    Sage
    ksu_aviator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Fort Worth Texas
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:04 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    6,680
    Blog Entries
    10

    Re: Should the President have "line-item veto" power?

    Quote Originally Posted by DrunkenAsparagus View Post
    This would essentially give the President power to virtually draft legislation, as he can alter it however he sees fit. This would greatly increase the power of an office that I feel already has too much power. It essentially throws the power of Congress almost entirely toward the President, who would no longer have to compromise with other branches of government.
    No it doesn't. Not unless the President can add to the legislation. Taking away is limiting enough that congress would still be important.
    You, my brothers and sisters, were called to be free. But do not use your freedom to indulge the flesh; rather, serve one another humbly in love.For the entire law is fulfilled in keeping this one command: “Love your neighbor as yourself.”

  5. #25
    Sage
    VanceMack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:12 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    54,600

    Re: Should the President have "line-item veto" power?

    Quote Originally Posted by Centinel View Post
    Totally agree, but in order to reduce federal power and roles, we need to change legislation, no? Is there another way?
    Of course the US Code would have to change...and do I think it will happen? No. Snowbells in hell have a better chance of surviving and thriving than responsible government. Cant blame it all on the government though...it starts with the people that put them there.
    Last edited by VanceMack; 12-28-11 at 01:57 PM.

  6. #26
    On Vacation
    joko104's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Last Seen
    12-03-17 @ 03:32 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    31,568
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Should the President have "line-item veto" power?

    The president should not have line-item veto and the constitutionality/legality of "executive orders" also should be challenged.

    Line-item veto would pass way too much power to the Presidency, would further enhance political payoffs and favors of special interests, and wouldn't solve the problems hoped it would solve.

  7. #27
    On Vacation
    joko104's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Last Seen
    12-03-17 @ 03:32 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    31,568
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Should the President have "line-item veto" power?

    The change that should be made is that the most honest federal agency, the GAO, should be placed under the federal court system's jurisdiction and given law enforcement power. That'd scare the hell out of corrupt politicians.

    As it is now, the GAO can find any level of theft or corruption and unless the (political) Justice Department will do something it all comes to nothing. Placing the GAO under the federal courts takes it out of political influence and giving them law enforcement (cop) power takes partisan politics out of it. Then if GAO found theft or corruption, their cop power would give them the power to investigate, ask for subpoenas and take people before a federal grand jury without begging the Executive's Justice Department appointee to do so, and if illegal conduct found take it directly to a Federal Grand Jury - again without hoping the political Justice Department would do so.

    Overall, federal law enforcement should be under court jurisdiction, not partisan politician's jurisdiction.
    Last edited by joko104; 12-28-11 at 02:06 PM.

  8. #28
    Uncanny
    Paschendale's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    New York City
    Last Seen
    03-31-16 @ 04:08 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Socialist
    Posts
    12,510

    Re: Should the President have "line-item veto" power?

    A line item veto is entirely contrary to the power of veto as outlined in the constitution. The president is not supposed to have that much say in lawmaking. The veto power is meant to prevent truly outrageous abuses of congressional power, not to stop pork barrel politics. What will stop such additions is if we stop tolerating them. Make sure that the country actually wants the president to veto bills that contain all sorts of amendments that people don't want. Make sure that pork barrel politics get someone voted out. The executive branch already had an enormous amount of new power from the last decade, essentially permitting it to pick and choose which congressional edicts it will carry out. At least the laws exist and can later be used to force a president to do his job. Letting the president pick and choose which laws occur on that kind of level is a HUGE step away from democratic rule and towards a dictatorship.

    I would not support line item vetos. They are hugely against what the constitution sets out for the president's veto power.
    Liberté. Égalité. Fraternité.

  9. #29
    Devourer of Poor Children
    DrunkenAsparagus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    DC
    Last Seen
    01-20-16 @ 04:07 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    4,496

    Re: Should the President have "line-item veto" power?

    Quote Originally Posted by ksu_aviator View Post
    No it doesn't. Not unless the President can add to the legislation. Taking away is limiting enough that congress would still be important.
    Line-item veto gives the President significant power to alter legislation. He cannot add anything, but his need to compromise with the legislative branch would almost entirely disappear.
    "Doubleplusungood"

    George Orwell

  10. #30
    Shankmasta Killa
    TacticalEvilDan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Western NY and Geneva, CH
    Last Seen
    08-30-15 @ 04:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    10,444

    Re: Should the President have "line-item veto" power?

    A line-item veto looks good on its face -- cut out the wasteful crap while leaving the genuine legislative goodness.

    The thing is, as much as we hate pork (or really anything off-topic being tacked onto a highly visible bill), that kind of horse-trading is how things get done in Congress. Every single member is responsible for representing the interests of their constituents, not the interests of the nation as a whole, and since each individual vote only carries so much weight, attaching add-ons to an otherwise popular bill is their best chance for fighting for interests of their specific constituencies.

    Not only that, but imagine if a bill granting power to the Executive under very specific circumstances made it to the President's desk and he used this power to eliminate some or all of the restrictions placed on that power. In a split Congress like the one we have, it's unlikely such an action would result in an over-ride.

    From the inception of the Constitution until the early 1900s, Congress was viewed as having domain over domestic issues and the President was viewed as merely acting as a check -- if he thought that a bill on his desk was not Constitutional he'd veto it, but generally not otherwise. Since the early 1900s the Presidency has amassed more and more power, some by communicating directly to the nation as a whole, and some through Congressional abdication.

    A genuine line-item veto would give the President far too much power and remove virtually all of the tools Congress currently has for horse-trading, compromise and the representation of minority interests.

    Quote Originally Posted by radcen View Post
    Many people, among them past Libertarian Presidential candidate Andre Marrou, believe that the line-item veto is already Constitutionally approved. It just hasn't been used/tested.
    It has been used, tested, and struck down:

    It was used against one provision of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 and two provisions of the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 before being challenged again in two separate cases; one by the City of New York, two hospital associations, one hospital, and two health care unions; the other by a farmers' cooperative from Idaho and an individual member of the cooperative. Senators Byrd, Moynihan,Levin, and Hatfield again opposed the law, this time through Amicus curiæ briefs..


    Judge Thomas Hogan of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia combined the cases and declared the lawunconstitutional on February 12, 1998. This ruling was subsequently affirmed on June 25, 1998 by a 6-3 decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case Clinton v. City of New York. Justices Breyer, Scalia, and O'Connor dissented.

    Line Item Veto Act of 1996 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    I'm already gearing up for Finger Vote 2014.

    Just for reference, means my post was a giant steaming pile of sarcasm.

Page 3 of 9 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •