• 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!

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

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

  • Yes

    Votes: 17 45.9%
  • No

    Votes: 17 45.9%
  • Undecided

    Votes: 3 8.1%

  • Total voters
    37
I say, giving the President more power is a bad idea.
If we want to stop Congress from adding unrelated items in bills then we need something like theOne Subject at a Time Actor OSTA.
We need to limit power rather than grant more power.
 
I say, giving the President more power is a bad idea.
If we want to stop Congress from adding unrelated items in bills then we need something like theOne Subject at a Time Actor OSTA.
We need to limit power rather than grant more power.

The more I read the responses to this thread, and the more I think about it, the less sure I am that a line item veto is a good idea after all. One subject at a time might work better, but who is going to pass it? The same Congress that likes to play dirty politics by passing bills with unrelated subjects?
 
Yep, I'm for it. As for concern about abuses of a line-item-veto....Bwahahahaha! Is that anything like abuses of legislation by congress? Because I'm pretty sure that a line-item veto, whether it's fairly applied or partisianly applied will get rid of at least half the abuse in any given year. GOP abuses cut during a Democrat Prez's term, Democrat abuses cut during a GOP Prez's term would be the worst case scenario. And right now, worst case is STILL better than what we've got, which is no budget, record deficit, and complete congressional paralysis.
 
The more I read the responses to this thread, and the more I think about it, the less sure I am that a line item veto is a good idea after all. One subject at a time might work better, but who is going to pass it? The same Congress that likes to play dirty politics by passing bills with unrelated subjects?
Just because you doubt Congress will pass such a bill does not mean we need to give the federal government more power. The federal government already assumes they have more power beyond what the US Constitution grants them so why codify it with an amendment? As a libertarian we need less government, eh?
I think you would be surprised how many in Congress would support OSTA. It will take hard work but, that is the nature of such things.
 
I have thought about this and realize I voted wrongly. Think about what we would create if the POTUS could do this. The POTUS not having line item veto keeps the balance in the bills and legislation that he has to sign. What good would it be to write the bills with Dem or GOP items in it if you know the POTUS is going to veto it anyway? Politicians would just give up and it would give the Pres a lot more autocratic power.
 
I have thought about this and realize I voted wrongly. Think about what we would create if the POTUS could do this. The POTUS not having line item veto keeps the balance in the bills and legislation that he has to sign. What good would it be to write the bills with Dem or GOP items in it if you know the POTUS is going to veto it anyway? Politicians would just give up and it would give the Pres a lot more autocratic power.

This has been traditionally why the line item veto has been so controversial - especially when it comes to governors. It simply provides the executive with too much power.
 
Just because you doubt Congress will pass such a bill does not mean we need to give the federal government more power. The federal government already assumes they have more power beyond what the US Constitution grants them so why codify it with an amendment? As a libertarian we need less government, eh?
I think you would be surprised how many in Congress would support OSTA. It will take hard work but, that is the nature of such things.

Less power would be better, no doubt. How could such a bill be passed? Hmmm.. maybe it could be a rider on another bill that everyone likes. Now, there's an ironic idea.
 
Yep, I'm for it. As for concern about abuses of a line-item-veto....Bwahahahaha! Is that anything like abuses of legislation by congress? Because I'm pretty sure that a line-item veto, whether it's fairly applied or partisianly applied will get rid of at least half the abuse in any given year. GOP abuses cut during a Democrat Prez's term, Democrat abuses cut during a GOP Prez's term would be the worst case scenario. And right now, worst case is STILL better than what we've got, which is no budget, record deficit, and complete congressional paralysis.
I cannot follow your method of thinking but, maybe some people rather treat the symptoms rather than cure the disease even if such treatment is killing you slowly.
Ok, Congress abuses their power so to help we are going to give the President more power so he/she can bring about more abuses? I am confused.

The federal government already assumes more power than granted in the US Constitution and things get worse and worse each 4 years.
So, why do we want to give them power and have it backed by the Constitution? I say, NO!
 
Last edited:
...who is going to pass it? The same Congress that likes to play dirty politics by passing bills with unrelated subjects?
It would not be an easy sell, that's for sure, but... the Civil Rights Act was passed by predominantly white guys. Women's suffrage was passed by men. So, it's not unheard of that a body of people would vote to dilute their own power if they can be convinced the cause is just.
 
It would not be an easy sell, that's for sure, but... the Civil Rights Act was passed by predominantly white guys. Women's suffrage was passed by men. So, it's not unheard of that a body of people would vote to dilute their own power if they can be convinced the cause is just.
Yeah, like that insider trading stuff we all heard about? Nah, not nowadays. Civil Rights and Womens Suffrage was easy because those white guys and men knew they were oppressing and discriminating, they were just waiting on someone to call them on it. This stuff? No way. Our gov't has gotten so powerful and aloof, it would never happen. I'm just wondering when something is going to happen to change the way things are going.
 
Yeah, like that insider trading stuff we all heard about? Nah, not nowadays. Civil Rights and Womens Suffrage was easy because those white guys and men knew they were oppressing and discriminating, they were just waiting on someone to call them on it. This stuff? No way. Our gov't has gotten so powerful and aloof, it would never happen. I'm just wondering when something is going to happen to change the way things are going.
Plus, in the case of women's rights, most of those men were living with one.
 
Different time, different era, different family dynamic.

Yep.

I was raised in a '50s family, past the time of women's suffrage, but the man was still the head of the house. My mother acknowledged her position, but also said that the woman was the neck, and the neck turns the head.
 
Presidents used to have the ability to not spend funds Congress had appropriated. I would support that limited version of the line-item veto. They are working in the House on a bipartisan measure that would allow the President to strip out provisions and send it back to Congress for an automatic up-or-down-vote, which I would also support.
 
Congress does not seem to have the will to change. They seem not to have the will to stop pork barrell spending.

Because the people like it. That's the definition of pork, in fact - spending that pleases the folks back home.
 
Presidents used to have the ability to not spend funds Congress had appropriated. I would support that limited version of the line-item veto. They are working in the House on a bipartisan measure that would allow the President to strip out provisions and send it back to Congress for an automatic up-or-down-vote, which I would also support.

You're basing your idea on the assumption that spending is bad unless proven good. If Congress makes a law to spend something, it's the law.
 
Yep, I'm for it. As for concern about abuses of a line-item-veto....Bwahahahaha! Is that anything like abuses of legislation by congress? Because I'm pretty sure that a line-item veto, whether it's fairly applied or partisianly applied will get rid of at least half the abuse in any given year. GOP abuses cut during a Democrat Prez's term, Democrat abuses cut during a GOP Prez's term would be the worst case scenario. And right now, worst case is STILL better than what we've got, which is no budget, record deficit, and complete congressional paralysis.

You're assuming that "abuse" means anything you don't like, I think.

As for paralysis - no, not really. Congress's work is ugly sometimes, but it did manage to get a debt ceiling increase, fund the government, etc. this year.
 
The more I read the responses to this thread, and the more I think about it, the less sure I am that a line item veto is a good idea after all. One subject at a time might work better, but who is going to pass it? The same Congress that likes to play dirty politics by passing bills with unrelated subjects?

If the President had the line-item veto, it wouldn't be much different from one subject at a time.
 
Presidents used to have the ability to not spend funds Congress had appropriated. I would support that limited version of the line-item veto. They are working in the House on a bipartisan measure that would allow the President to strip out provisions and send it back to Congress for an automatic up-or-down-vote, which I would also support.
That would be an improvement, but at the same time seems more complicated that it needs to be.


Because the people like it. That's the definition of pork, in fact - spending that pleases the folks back home.
Yep. People hate other people's pork, but they love their own.


If the President had the line-item veto, it wouldn't be much different from one subject at a time.
At least the single-subject concept is more transparent for all involved, and makes Congresspeople more easily identifiable for what they vote for and don't vote for as well as the President.
 
At least the single-subject concept is more transparent for all involved, and makes Congresspeople more easily identifiable for what they vote for and don't vote for as well as the President.

I agree. Single-subject would be the preference for me.
 
If the President had the line-item veto, it wouldn't be much different from one subject at a time.

Yes it would be different.One subject at a time means that everything in the bill has to be related. A line item veto means the president can just veto stuff anything in the bill he doesn't like. For example a immigration compromise bill could have both enforcement and amnesty measures and everything related to those things, it couldn't have money for a video game museum,$682,570 to Study 'Shrimp On A Treadmill',light bulb ban repeal, or some other unrelated subject. A line item veto means that he can take that immigration compromise bill and just veto all the amnesty measures or veto all the enforcement measures.
 
I'm undecided on this one. Article 1, Section 7 of the Constitution clearly outlines the procedure the President is to follow if he disapproves of a bill. However, I can understand where there may be times when using the veto power may seem over-kill and a line-item veto may be more appropriate.

Example: S. 1436 Amdt and the 60-day KeystoneXL pipeline approval provision.

If the President had the power of the line item veto, he could have crossed out that provision but kept the rest of the bill in-tact.

Of course, the line item veto creates a legal problem - the President stepping over Congress' enumerated power to write laws. Hence, the reason the Supreme Court over ruled that power. And, thus, this brings us back to Art. 1, Sect 7.

While I can see some instances where a line item veto might be a worthwhile power the President could use effectively, it would also give him/her an empirical power to line out any provision of a law he/she may disagree with. And that takes us to an oft used tool some Presidents have taken advantage of (or abused) to skirt certain provisions of the law they believe they need not follow. It's called a signing statement.

It's a tough call, but I'd rather a President simply use his/her veto power to strike down a bill than to jump through hoops fighting the Supreme Court to justify the use of his line item veto power...if ever given again (post-Clinton)...not to mention concern for such power being abused.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom