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 9 of 9 FirstFirst ... 789
Results 81 to 88 of 88

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

  1. #81
    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?

    Quote Originally Posted by radcen View Post
    Are you suggesting that we should never ever change laws?
    No, not all. I'm just snickering at the blatant hypocrisy of those who normally worship the genius of the founders and the beauty of the Constitution, who scoff at any who call the Constitution a living document or at any argument that it needs to be updated or modernized in any way -- and then decide that handing the government more power is an acceptable solution to the government's abuses of power.
    I'm already gearing up for Finger Vote 2014.

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

  2. #82
    Phonetic Mnemonic
    radcen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Look to your right... I'm that guy.
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:05 AM
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    33,413

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

    Quote Originally Posted by TacticalEvilDan View Post
    No, not all. I'm just snickering at the blatant hypocrisy of those who normally worship the genius of the founders and the beauty of the Constitution, who scoff at any who call the Constitution a living document or at any argument that it needs to be updated or modernized in any way -- and then decide that handing the government more power is an acceptable solution to the government's abuses of power.
    Ah, got'cha. I didn't quite understand your previous post. Thanks for the clarification.

  3. #83
    Sage

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

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

    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    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.....
    As you so kindly pointed out, that was at the State level (governor) not the federal level (President) - two completely different levels of power and, thus, two completely different issues.

  4. #84
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 02:43 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,107

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Objective Voice View Post
    As you so kindly pointed out, that was at the State level (governor) not the federal level (President) - two completely different levels of power and, thus, two completely different issues.
    the issue (how do we want government to work) is the same - the states are supposed to be the laboratories of democracy. A non-veto wherein the President merely asks Congress to reiterate their support for a particular piece of spending is hardly an overturning of checks and balances. Heck, President's from Jefferson to Nixon had the power to simply refuse to spend money that Congress had allotted alltogether.

  5. #85
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 02:43 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,107

    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.
    nothing new about it:


    Impoundment of appropriated funds

    Impoundment is the decision of a President of the United States not to spend money that has been appropriated by the U.S. Congress. The precedent for presidential impoundment was first set by Thomas Jefferson in 1801. The power was available to all presidents up to and including Richard Nixon, and was regarded as a power inherent to the office. The Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 was passed in response to perceived abuse of the power under President Nixon. Title X of the act, and its interpretation under Train v. City of New York, essentially removed the power. This severely inhibited a president's ability to combat excessive spending...
    ...Since 1974, presidents have submitted rescission proposals totaling $76 billion, of which Congress accepted and rescinded $25 billion. Both Republican and Democratic presidents have submitted rescission proposals since the enactment of the ICA in 1974. The number and dollar values proposed have varied widely with each administration. For example, the Reagan administration proposed the highest number (245 in 1985) and the highest dollar value ($15.4 billion in 1981). On the other hand, President George W. Bush did not submit any proposals under the ICA. In October 2005, however, President Bush sent a letter to Congress proposing the "cancellation" and rescission of budget authority...
    nor terribly one-sided:

    ...Senators John McCain (R-AZ) and Thomas Carper (D-DE) have joined efforts in yet another bipartisan pairing, this time to enable enhanced rescission authority for the President in order to restrain spending. Last week we saw senators reach across the aisle to propose reforms for biennial budgeting and discretionary spending caps. This latest proposal for an "expedited rescission" authority, which is a modified form of the line-item veto, has had support in the past. Carper, McCain, and former-Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI) sponsored similar legislation in the 111th Congress with the support of President Obama, but it was never put to a vote. Now there appears to be new life and new support for this bill, The Reduce Unnecessary Spending Act.

    Sens. Carper and McCain have long been champions of enhanced rescission authority....
    and so on and so forth.
    Last edited by cpwill; 12-30-11 at 08:52 PM.

  6. #86
    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?

    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    the issue (how do we want government to work) is the same - the states are supposed to be the laboratories of democracy. A non-veto wherein the President merely asks Congress to reiterate their support for a particular piece of spending is hardly an overturning of checks and balances. Heck, President's from Jefferson to Nixon had the power to simply refuse to spend money that Congress had allotted alltogether.
    ... at which point you end up with legislation which only addresses the concerns of simple majorities (where the President is behind the legislation) or super majorities (where the President is not behind the legislation). The interests of minority voting blocks end up being ignored to the point that they may as well not bother showing up, much less getting elected.

    A line-item veto doesn't simply ask Congress to reiterate its support for a particular facet of a bill. It would (as previously configured) require a super majority of both houses to over-ride, and if the facet in question was part of a compromise to get the simple majority needed to pass the bill, then the minority block gets shafted while the bill's supporters get what they want.

    Why on the face of the earth would it be a good thing to eliminate the ability of smaller voting blocks to negotiate to the benefit of their constituents?
    I'm already gearing up for Finger Vote 2014.

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

  7. #87
    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 jamesrage View Post
    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.
    Same basic outcome though.
    "Yes I read the 9th [amendment]. It doesn't say **** about abortion." -Jamesrage

  8. #88
    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 cpwill View Post
    nothing new about it:
    Why should the President be able to override decisions enacted into law by Congress? The impoundment power was unconstitutional.
    "Yes I read the 9th [amendment]. It doesn't say **** about abortion." -Jamesrage

Page 9 of 9 FirstFirst ... 789

Posting Permissions

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