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 8 of 9 FirstFirst ... 6789 LastLast
Results 71 to 80 of 88

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

  1. #71
    Phonetic Mnemonic
    radcen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Look to your right... I'm that guy.
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:10 PM
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    33,422

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

    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    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.


    Quote Originally Posted by misterman View Post
    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.


    Quote Originally Posted by misterman View Post
    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.

  2. #72
    Sage
    misterman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Last Seen
    02-09-12 @ 08:41 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    12,913

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

    Quote Originally Posted by radcen View Post
    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.
    "Yes I read the 9th [amendment]. It doesn't say **** about abortion." -Jamesrage

  3. #73
    Sage
    Dittohead not!'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    The Golden State
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:45 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    41,570

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

    Quote Originally Posted by radcen View Post
    makes Congresspeople more easily identifiable for what they vote for and don't vote for as well as the President.
    which is the last thing most of them want.
    "Donald Trump is a phony, a fraud... [he's] playing the American public for suckers." Mitt Romney

  4. #74
    Sage
    jamesrage's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    A place where common sense exists
    Last Seen
    12-10-17 @ 09:23 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    31,067

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

    Quote Originally Posted by misterman View Post
    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.
    "A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murder is less to fear"

    Cicero Marcus Tullius

  5. #75
    Sage

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Huntsville, AL (USA)
    Last Seen
    12-13-17 @ 10:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    9,766

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

    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 by Objective Voice; 12-30-11 at 12:04 AM.

  6. #76
    Tavern Bartender
    Constitutionalist
    American's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Virginia
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:49 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    76,323

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

    Quote Originally Posted by radcen View Post
    Should the President have "line-item veto" power?
    SCOTUS has already ruled on this. This was part of Contract with America, and didn't get through.
    "He who does not think himself worth saving from poverty and ignorance by his own efforts, will hardly be thought worth the efforts of anybody else." -- Frederick Douglass, Self-Made Men (1872)
    "Fly-over" country voted, and The Donald is now POTUS.

  7. #77
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:25 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,125

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

    Quote Originally Posted by radcen View Post
    That would be an improvement, but at the same time seems more complicated that it needs to be.
    eh, i'm a fan of altering our balance of power by steps, rather than leaps. Reagan used precisely that form of "line item veto" to great effect as governor of California. Oddly, when the bills came up under their own merits, they never passed.....

  8. #78
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:25 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,125

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

    Quote Originally Posted by misterman View Post
    You're basing your idea on the assumption that spending is bad unless proven good.
    that is correct. whenever you are demanding that force be used to seize property from others to put it towards your own use, the onus is on you to demonstrate the efficacy of doing so. especially given our current situation.

    If Congress makes a law to spend something, it's the law.
    which makes it neither "good" nor "wise".

  9. #79
    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?

    It's kind of funny how some people are all about the Constitution and checks and balances and limits on power -- until something irritates or frustrates or angers them and they decide the government needs a new tool to fix it.
    I'm already gearing up for Finger Vote 2014.

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

  10. #80
    Phonetic Mnemonic
    radcen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Look to your right... I'm that guy.
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:10 PM
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    33,422

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

    Quote Originally Posted by TacticalEvilDan View Post
    It's kind of funny how some people are all about the Constitution and checks and balances and limits on power -- until something irritates or frustrates or angers them and they decide the government needs a new tool to fix it.
    Are you suggesting that we should never ever change laws?

Page 8 of 9 FirstFirst ... 6789 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
  •