• 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
radcen said:
Should the President have "line-item veto" power?
Click to expand...
SCOTUS has already ruled on this. This was part of Contract with America, and didn't get through.
 
radcen said:
That would be an improvement, but at the same time seems more complicated that it needs to be.
Click to expand...

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.....
 
misterman said:
You're basing your idea on the assumption that spending is bad unless proven good.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

which makes it neither "good" nor "wise".
 
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.
 
TacticalEvilDan said:
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.
Click to expand...
Are you suggesting that we should never ever change laws?
 
radcen said:
Are you suggesting that we should never ever change laws?
Click to expand...

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.
 
TacticalEvilDan said:
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.
Click to expand...
Ah, got'cha. I didn't quite understand your previous post. Thanks for the clarification. :)
 
cpwill said:
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.....
Click to expand...

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.
 
Objective Voice said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
TacticalEvilDan said:
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.
Click to expand...

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...
Click to expand...

...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...
Click to expand...

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....
Click to expand...

and so on and so forth.
 
Last edited:
cpwill said:
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.
Click to expand...

... 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?
 
jamesrage said:
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.
Click to expand...

Same basic outcome though.
 
cpwill said:
nothing new about it:
Click to expand...

Why should the President be able to override decisions enacted into law by Congress? The impoundment power was unconstitutional.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom