• 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!

How's about a Line-Item-Veto Amendment?

Pass a Line Item Veto Amendment to the US Constitution?


  • Total voters
    20
I didn't even bother to read your example. You need to locate an example of Constitutional spending before you go off on a line-item hunt.

Fine. Let's say Congress is debating a military spending bill. Republicans want $2 billion for a missile launcher in the Ukraine. Democrats want $2 billion for the USS Mercy to set up shop off the coast of Yemen. Neither side likes the other side's idea, but they're willing to agree to it to get what they want.

The President then vetoes the half of the bill that the opposing party wanted.

Scarecrow Akhbar said:
Maybe they should restrict their wishing to things the Constitution actually allows, and then the whole matter no longer has such importance.

There's an idea for the socialist to get indigestion over.

You keep avoiding the fact that a line-item veto wouldn't necessarily be limited to projects which YOU deem unconstitutional.

Scarecrow Akhbar said:
Works for me. So you're saying a Line Item Veto would wind up with the Republicans not trading pork with the Democrats and the Democrats not trading pork with the Republicans.

I'm saying it would wind up with them not negotiating on anything at all, pork or otherwise.

Scarecrow Akhbar said:
Well....gee by golly...."Hey, YO! We gots here twenty billion buckaroos for body armor and armored Hummers for the troops in Iraq, and over in this here quiet little corner of the bill, we gots a hundred thousand for Bob's library in I-da-Hoe!, a quarter million for Joe's Schmoo Farm in Alabamer, and another two billion scattered in tiny little lumps all over the country.

Sometimes pork is hard to find....like when you buy a can of "pork" and beans, you can't see but one peice of something that probably was a used football. In other cases it's not that hard to spot.

If you want to enshrine this in the Constitution, you've got to do better than that in defining exactly what you're talking about. I assume you don't want to insert language in your constitutional amendment specifically banning funding for Bob's library in I-da-Hoe?
 
Last edited:
It would have to be an amendment to the Constitution. The Republican Congress already tried giving it to Clinton, and I think it was struck down by the Supremes.
 
I am looking at the real point,this thing is a double edge sword. It is fine if the president is a member of your party and it is not fine if the president is not a member of your party.

You must mean because you want your party to pass along all the pork it can to your pals.

The reality is that your party is still getting all the pork it wants right now, no matter which party it is.

That a president is going to have the means to end the other party's pork means one thing.....the party not in power is going to resist the dominant party's pork all the harder.

I fail to see how this is a problem for anyone that wants to see a Constitutional federal government again.

How do you think we get there from here if we don't start demanding the president have the tools to restrain the most unconstitutional branch of government?

Your are missing the whole picture, the president will not use it to cut out just pork spending, he will use it to cut out spending for things that he does not want spending for.

And you're deliberately ignoring the fact that the Congress can override vetos.

Oh, gee.

How's about them apples, dude?

So much for your argument.

Needed legislation gets passed and funded, pork dies.

Can't have that, now can we. Oh, NO! We have to keep everything exactly as it is now because Congress is soooOOOO! wonderful that you could never imagine anything that would make it work that much better, right?

He may not even cut out any pork, he may leave it in there to bribe some members of his party to keep putting things in the bills he wants to sign.

Oh. So now your argument is that if the Prez had the line item veto, it's dangerous because he might not use it.

Wellll, okay...:roll:

President- I want a dirt Museum in my home town
One of the members of the president's party- I want a funding for the study of cow farts

next bill-
Line item veto 1- funding for the scientific study of the effects of methane gas impact on the environment emitted by domesticated farm animals. pass
Line item veto 2- funding for modern art museum.pass


So? I can't recall anywhere in the Constitution where the study of cow farts or dirt is in the purview of the Congress as defined by Article 1, Section 8.

You have read Art 1, Sect 8, have you?

Politicians however know that voters have a short attention span and a short memory,what he is doing now will have no impact on him when he runs for reelection it won't even have any effect on the politicians who have midterm elections coming up. It probably won't even be a issue.

Oh, that explains how Carter got re-elected. Bush I, too.

It's up to the politician's opposition to make those issues plain when election time rolls around.

The president can refuse to sign it until they give him a bill free of pork.

Ah. So sad. So many people don't understand how things in the real world work.

He can tell the media that he refuses to sign any thing with pork he can explain to the public some of the hoopal that is in the bill that made him not want to sign it.

Yeah, that's worked so well in the past....not.

It seems it is routine for any spending bill to be laced with pork,because as long as a president will sign a bill with pork in then that is what congress and senate are going to try to push. Presidents have refused to sign bills before,this should be no different.

Right.

Whatcha gonna say when the troops in the field don't get their ammo and and fuel and rations because the president and the Congress are playing chicken?

I thought anarchist children and morons(an adult who is a anarchist) were against government,police and all that stuff? So anarchist have not relation to not wanting the president to have line veto power.

Naw, anarchists are the most confused ignorant people out there. They say and do anything that sounds like it'll get them laid. Like, f'rinstance, saying the government is just perfectly dandy the way it is today.
 
You must mean because you want your party to pass along all the pork it can to your pals.

The reality is that your party is still getting all the pork it wants right now, no matter which party it is.

That a president is going to have the means to end the other party's pork means one thing.....the party not in power is going to resist the dominant party's pork all the harder.

I fail to see how this is a problem for anyone that wants to see a Constitutional federal government again.

How do you think we get there from here if we don't start demanding the president have the tools to restrain the most unconstitutional branch of government?

Restraining unconstitutional acts is the domain of the Supreme Court, not the President. But regardless, you STILL have not addressed the obvious fact that a line-item veto would inevitably apply to more than just projects which YOU deem to be "pork."

Your inability to define what exactly you're talking about when you say "pork" is a pretty strong argument AGAINST a constitutional amendment. Citing "Bob's library in I-da-hoe" simply doesn't cut it. You want to change the Constitution, you'd better have a damn good reason and be able to clearly enunciate what exactly you want to give the president the power to do.
 
Last edited:
It would have to be an amendment to the Constitution. The Republican Congress already tried giving it to Clinton, and I think it was struck down by the Supremes.

I didn't know a defunct jive band had that kind of power.

And yeah, the OP said "amendment".
 
Restraining unconstitutional acts is the domain of the Supreme Court, not the President.

Wrong.

I guess you're like Obama, and don't know the Presidential Oath of Orifice.

He swears to uphold the Constitution.

Cain't do that if he's busy signing bills that clearly violate the Constitution into law.

But regardless, you STILL have not addressed the obvious fact that a line-item veto would inevitably apply to more than just projects which YOU deem to be "pork."

Sure I have.

I've noticed a bazillion times where I said the Congress can override the vetos on these items.

You've ignored that a bazillion times because you can't address it in any manner without revealing the partisan nature of your willing intransigient ignorance.

Anyway, it's been asked, answered, asked, answered, asked, answered, asked, answered, asked, answered, asked, answered, asked, answered, asked, answered, and answered again until you've saturated the thread with boredom.

Ain't said a thing to discount the needful validity of the Line Item Veto, but you just keep repeating refuted arguments.

Got anything new to add, or is that your best shot?

Your inability to define what exactly you're talking about when you say "pork" is a pretty strong argument AGAINST a constitutional amendment.

No. Everyone knows what pork is. It's pretty obvious.

Also, it doesn't matter for the purposes of the Line Item Veto Amendment. The congress puts some item in a bill, that's either necessary or not, and the president eithe vetos it, or not. If it's vetoed, the congress gets to vote to override the veto.

It's not complicated. It's simple enought that even a Democrat graduated from a Public School can understand it if he makes an effort to be honest.

Well....okay, that would have to be an EXCEPTIONAL Democrat, most of whom can't understand why anyone would want that poor innocent little budget to be cut anywhere, except for that naaasssty defense budget.

Citing "Bob's library in I-da-hoe" simply doesn't cut it.

Worked for me.

I don't waste a lot of time explaining why there's air. I figure if you need it you'll do you best to figure out what it is.

You want to change the Constitution, you'd better have a damn good reason and be able to clearly enunciate what exactly you want to give the president the power to do.

Damn Good Reason #1: Two Trillion Dollars in Deficit spending in six months.

Damn Good Reason #2: Thirty Straight Years of Congressional Refusal to limit spending to revenues (no, Clinton never had a "surplus", don't post that lie unless you like looking foolish and gullible). Congress refuses to fix the problem. If not Congress, who? Not the courts. Budget matters certainly don't belong there. Only one left is the Prez, dude.

Damn Good Reason #3: Democrats oppose it. It HAS to be good for the country if the Democrats don't like it. (okay, that's not strictly true, but it's really really close to being an absolute.)

Damn Good Reason #4: You can't come up with a good reason not to do it.
 
I've noticed a bazillion times where I said the Congress can override the vetos on these items.

Irrelevant, if the bill that the President signs into law is not the same bill that Congress approved. Perhaps Congress never would've voted for the President's version of that bill. I know it's hard to believe, but occasionally legislation is more than just a laundry list of goodies, and removing SOME of the provisions of the bill is worse than either passing it in full or not passing it at all.

Congress can override vetoes WITHOUT a constitutional amendment. Of the ENTIRE bill.

Scarecrow Akhbar said:
You've ignored that a bazillion times because you can't address it in any manner without revealing the partisan nature of your willing intransigient ignorance.

Anyway, it's been asked, answered, asked, answered, asked, answered, asked, answered, asked, answered, asked, answered, asked, answered, asked, answered, and answered again until you've saturated the thread with boredom.

Nope, you continually ignore my example of, say, a compromise in a defense bill. Republicans want a missile launcher in the Ukraine, which Democrats don't want. Democrats want the USS Mercy in Yemen, which Republicans don't want. They agree to cooperate and everyone's happy. If the President has the power to veto the opposing party's half of the bill, then there is no incentive for them to ever cooperate on any legislation in the first place.

Scarecrow Akhbar said:
No. Everyone knows what pork is. It's pretty obvious.

Unacceptable answer. Try again.

Scarecrow Akhbar said:
Also, it doesn't matter for the purposes of the Line Item Veto Amendment. The congress puts some item in a bill, that's either necessary or not, and the president eithe vetos it, or not. If it's vetoed, the congress gets to vote to override the veto.

The Congress passes some bill that's either necessary or not, and the president either vetoes the bill or not. If it's vetoed, the Congress gets to vote to override the veto.


Scarecrow Akhbar said:
Damn Good Reason #1: Two Trillion Dollars in Deficit spending in six months.

Two questions: 1) Do you believe that would not have been the case if George Bush and/or Barack Obama had had the line-item veto? 2) Are you really going to argue for a constitutional amendment because Congress recently did something that made you mad?

Scarecrow Akhbar said:
Damn Good Reason #2: Thirty Straight Years of Congressional Refusal to limit spending to revenues (no, Clinton never had a "surplus", don't post that lie unless you like looking foolish and gullible). Congress refuses to fix the problem. If not Congress, who? Not the courts. Budget matters certainly don't belong there. Only one left is the Prez, dude.

That sounds like a good reason to pass a balanced budget amendment (at least with exceptions for major wars and major recessions). I fail to see how that is a good reason to pass a line-item veto amendment.

Scarecrow Akhbar said:
Damn Good Reason #3: Democrats oppose it. It HAS to be good for the country if the Democrats don't like it. (okay, that's not strictly true, but it's really really close to being an absolute.)

Damn Good Reason #4: You can't come up with a good reason not to do it.

Reasons #3 and #4 pretty much prove your point about you being the "embodiment of reason." How could I have ever doubted this? :roll:
 
Last edited:
Wrong.

I guess you're like Obama, and don't know the Presidential Oath of Orifice.

He swears to uphold the Constitution.

Cain't do that if he's busy signing bills that clearly violate the Constitution into law.

If Obama already right now signs pork loaded bills why would he stop? As far as I know there is no law that says Obama has to sign every bill that is on his desk.The only difference would be is that he can choose the pork he and spending for other things he wants.



I've noticed a bazillion times where I said the Congress can override the vetos on these items.

And I've notice that is has been said a bazillion times that if Obama was serious about not wanting pork then he can refuse to sign it until they give him a bill that does not have pork.
Damn Good Reason #3: Democrats oppose it. It HAS to be good for the country if the Democrats don't like it. (okay, that's not strictly true, but it's really really close to being an absolute.)

Yeah right,sure they oppose it.
Amazing what you can find when you post a topic in other forums.

Feingold, Ryan back presidential line item veto -- chicagotribune.com

WASHINGTON - Democratic Sen. Russ Feingold and Republican Rep. Paul Ryan formed an unlikely partnership on Wednesday, coming together to push Congress to pass line item veto legislation.

The legislation would give President Barack Obama the power to strike individual items from budget bills.

The Wisconsin lawmakers joined Republican Sen. John McCain of Arizona at a press conference on Wednesday to introduce the legislation.

"This bill is about the need to stop wasteful earmarks especially in this time of economic crisis," Feingold said. "... If Congress won't restrain itself the president should be able to try."

McCain was a key backer of previous line item veto legislation. The Supreme Court struck it down in 1998, and previous efforts to pass it did not gain traction.

Feingold, Ryan and McCain said Tuesday their bill was tweaked to make it constitutional. Under the legislation, Congress would be able to overrule line item vetoes with a simple majority vote in either chamber.

The 1998 legislation did not require congressional approval for the president's line item vetoes to be enacted. McCain said the alterations would ensure the bill passed legal muster but still served as a useful tool in curbing spending.

"If the bill were the law of the land, our president, President Obama, wouldn't have to choose between signing or vetoing this omnibus bill. He could clean it up," McCain said.


Damn Good Reason #1: Two Trillion Dollars in Deficit spending in six months.

Damn Good Reason #2: Thirty Straight Years of Congressional Refusal to limit spending to revenues (no, Clinton never had a "surplus", don't post that lie unless you like looking foolish and gullible). Congress refuses to fix the problem. If not Congress, who? Not the courts. Budget matters certainly don't belong there. Only one left is the Prez, dude.

Line item veto would not stop absurd spending. The only spending it would stop would be that of the party he opposes.
 
Last edited:
If Obama already right now signs pork loaded bills why would he stop?

Not relevant.

We all know Obama is a diseased puppet following the orders of corporate and intellengentsia masters.

Even if Obama had the line item veto handy, he wouldn't be allowed to use it.

No, the Line Item Veto is a tool an American citizen president can use.

As far as I know there is no law that says Obama has to sign every bill that is on his desk.The only difference would be is that he can choose the pork he and spending for other things he wants.

Nope.

He could have chosen to not sign that trillion dollar pork bill, but he did.

Certainly if a defense appropriations bill comes across his desk while we have troops in the field under fire, he'll refuse to sign that one.

(Are you people for real?)

And I've notice that is has been said a bazillion times that if Obama was serious about not wanting pork then he can refuse to sign it until they give him a bill that does not have pork.

You can't even define a "bazillion".

Feingold, Ryan back presidential line item veto -- chicagotribune.com

WASHINGTON - Democratic Sen. Russ Feingold and Republican Rep. Paul Ryan formed an unlikely partnership on Wednesday, coming together to push Congress to pass line item veto legislation.

That's just stupid and meaningless.

The court has already ruled that Congress cannot pass legislation granting the President line item veto authority, that such authority must be awarded by a constitutional amendment.

This legislation is nothing but empty legislation by has-been politicians facing the deep twilight of perpetual irrelevancy.

Line item veto would not stop absurd spending. The only spending it would stop would be that of the party he opposes.

Yeah, I already refuted that.

Try reading the thread.
 
Not relevant.

It is relevent because nothing is forcing him to sign pork loaded bills,why would he stop just because an ability to strike out spending he opposes?

We all know Obama is a diseased puppet following the orders of corporate and intellengentsia masters.

Even if Obama had the line item veto handy, he wouldn't be allowed to use it.

No, the Line Item Veto is a tool an American citizen president can use.

No a line item veto is just a means of giving the president more power,it will not reduce pork and other wasteful spending,it will only reduce spending he opposes.If he opposes funding for the military then he will veto funding for the military when it comes up in a bill, if he opposes border security then he will veto funding for it when it comes up for a bill, if he wants a giant statue of his ass and it comes up in a spending bill he will approve it.



Don't me that load of horse **** of how politicians do not want to do things to jeopardize their political career,they do it all the time. They vote themselves pay raises,they give funding for fruitflies, they call residents in their hometown racist or rednecks,they try to sell this country out to illegals aliens and globalism, they falsely accuse marines of murder. And the number one reason why they get away with **** like this and continue to get reelected is because voters have a short memory and short attention span.


A real solution would be to make these politicians read out loud every damn bill they write and every amendment they write to a bill and explain in laymans terms why they need or want this spending. Also require every politician to read these bills and explain out loud why they support or oppose the bill before signing them,perhaps this will cut down on dictionary size bills. With video and internet and these requirements politicians would very weary of adding pork and approving bills before they read them.


Nope.

He could have chosen to not sign that trillion dollar pork bill, but he did.

Certainly if a defense appropriations bill comes across his desk while we have troops in the field under fire, he'll refuse to sign that one.

(Are you people for real?)

Again he can refuse to sign it and tell them to rewrite another one if he is dissatisfied with it. The president is not a mindless bill signing drone.


You can't even define a "bazillion".


An infinite number or a very large exaggerated number.



That's just stupid and meaningless.

How is it stupid and meaningless?You claimed democrats opposed a line item veto, I proved you wrong.

The court has already ruled that Congress cannot pass legislation granting the President line item veto authority, that such authority must be awarded by a constitutional amendment.

This legislation is nothing but empty legislation by has-been politicians facing the deep twilight of perpetual irrelevancy.

This has nothing to do with your reason for opposing something

"Damn Good Reason #3: Democrats oppose it."

Yeah, I already refuted that.

Try reading the thread.

I did read the thread you didn't refute anything.
 
There used to be a line item veto. This power was taken from the President because it was viewed as a breach of the powers of the President according to the constitution.

Basically, it gave the President a way to remove legislation as he saw fit and it left Congress with no way to prevent it. This is created a serious issue because it left the President with unchecked power to modify legislation.

Despite the fact that Clinton used the line-item veto to prevent needless spending; the line-item veto would be devistating in the hands of a President like Geroge W. Bush or whomever the next neo-con is that gets into that office.

The line-item veto is dangerous and creates a power vaccume at the highest levels of our government. It simply cannot be allowed.
 
There used to be a line item veto. This power was taken from the President because it was viewed as a breach of the powers of the President according to the constitution.

An objection that doesn't exist with a line item veto AMENDMENT.

Basically, it gave the President a way to remove legislation as he saw fit and it left Congress with no way to prevent it.

Not true.

Vetos can be overridden.

Despite the fact that Clinton used the line-item veto to prevent needless spending; the line-item veto would be devistating in the hands of a President like Geroge W. Bush or whomever the next neo-con is that gets into that office.

Yes, Bush was an incredible deficit hawk, wasn't he, always complaining about excessive unconstitutional spending and working ceaselessly to protect the American people from the unconstitutional depredations of congress.

How awful.

The line-item veto is dangerous and creates a power vaccume at the highest levels of our government. It simply cannot be allowed.

You mean the Congress will simply refuse to vote to override any vetoed items they feel are essential?

You mean that Congress can never have any restraints put on it at all?
 
I agree with Ikari, No to the line-item-veto amendment and Yes to One Subject at a Time Act .

Oh, sweet.

Is "building an aircraft carrier" the same subject as "purchasing body armor" or the same subject at "building a tank"?

Who gets to decide what the "one subject" is, the President? The House? The Senate?

If the bill winds up with (gasp!) two subjects....what's the prez going to do, veto the secondary subject? Or ...gee just like today, we'll see fools saying he shouldn't sign the bill?

You people are so naive.

Why do you trust congress, when it's the Congress that passes the silly laws that ruin the country?

====
OH! THE COURTS, those wonderful people gave us Abortion-on-Demand and Kelo v New London will be wonderful arbiters of what's "one subject" and what's not.

So instead having an elected executive, the president, declare a particular entry in a bill is unacceptable and allowing the Congress to override that decision immediately, you people want unelected judges to wait years before reviewing a LAW and deciding which segments, all of which are now in effect, shall be de-certified in law. The COURTS will certainly bring elements of clarity and promptness never before experienced in the national discourse.

Wonderful idea, that, insisting unelected lifetime judges join in with the legislative process and take over from that tricky elected president.
 
Last edited:
An objection that doesn't exist with a line item veto AMENDMENT.


Not true.

Vetos can be overridden.

General vetos can be overidden with 2/3 vote by Congress. No such mechanism exists for the line item veto.

You mean the Congress will simply refuse to vote to override any vetoed items they feel are essential?

I mean ... there was a reason why the line item veto was removed from the President's hands.

It was often used as a tool for partisan politicking. It gave the President too much power. The President could essentially remove parts of bills he disliked.

This is unacceptable as it renders congress moot in terms of passing legislation.

You mean that Congress can never have any restraints put on it at all?

Congress has plenty of restraint on it. The President does as well ... now that he can no longer exercise the power of a line item veto.
 
Oh, sweet.

Is "building an aircraft carrier" the same subject as "purchasing body armor" or the same subject at "building a tank"?

Who gets to decide what the "one subject" is, the President? The House? The Senate?

If the bill winds up with (gasp!) two subjects....what's the prez going to do, veto the secondary subject? Or ...gee just like today, we'll see fools saying he shouldn't sign the bill?

You people are so naive.

Yet we have bills that pass that are several hundred pages long, that weren't released until the day of the vote. You know people aren't voting on something they have read and researched. And neither is the President when he's signing the thing. People look at the name and that's that.

The line-item veto is legislative authority exercised by the executive; that's not something that's supposed to happen. The President already legislates through the executive order (which is why the power and scope of the EO should be drastically reduced), no more legislation through the President. The President isn't king, he shouldn't be able to write and enact law. If we're looking for restrictions, we should look to the Congress side because a lot of the arguments for this are born out of the ridiculous nature of some of the bills which come out of Congress. We should also enforce through votes some form of reasonable parliamentary procedure. If politicians are not willing to be rational and logical, they should lose their seat. It's a lot to ask for, but I don't think giving the President legislative powers is the solution to the problem.

Why do you trust congress, when it's the Congress that passes the silly laws that ruin the country?

I don't trust any part of government.
 
Meh. Just veto the whole thing and make them start over. I doubt congress will learn either way but do it on principle. If Obama can take a four day vacation after congress ramrods a spending bill down our throats (without reading it mind you) then it cant be very imperative to American can it?
 
The choices in this poll suck.

SCOTUS has already ruled that a line item veto is unconstitutional, as it should have. However, Bush's signing statements were never challenged and they are just as unconstitutional.

I believe Obama has recently spoken on how those earmarks are to be handled in the future. I hope he sticks to his guns. If they can't be argued they shouldn't be in a bill. I see it as black and white. However, we are talking about politics and politicians. :mrgreen:
 
The choices in this poll suck.

SCOTUS has already ruled that a line item veto is unconstitutional, as it should have. However, Bush's signing statements were never challenged and they are just as unconstitutional.


Yet...amazingly...the USSC Supreme Court has NEVER ruled that an Amendment ratified to the Constitution is unconstitutional. Gotta wonder how that would work if the States got their act together and pushed Congress to give the president the line item veto Amendment he needs to rein in the nonsense the Congress keeps shoving out.


I believe Obama has recently spoken on how those earmarks are to be handled in the future. I hope he sticks to his guns. If they can't be argued they shouldn't be in a bill. I see it as black and white. However, we are talking about politics and politicians. :mrgreen:


Obama won't do a thing.

He can't.

He doesn't have line item veto authority.

He either vetos the entire bill, and the Congress overrides it, which it will do if there's enough earmarks on the pig, or he signs it.

And President Callow Puppet ain't gonna cross Nancy and Harry. Won't happen.
 
I don't trust any part of government.

Yeah right. sure.

Of course.

Naturally.

Its the in-thing to say.

Your opposition to a Line Item Veto Amendment says that you trust the thieves in congress more than the boob in the White House.

I understand them both and recognize that giving the President the power to say "no" to specific absurd items will curtail the production of those items in the future.

These other people? They're living in a strange land where consequences never affect future action.
 
I think a line-item veto makes pragmatic sense, and I don't see how it could be interpreted as unconstitutional.

Individual provision which are vetoed by the president would go back to congress, instead of returning the entire bill.
 
The thing about the line item veto is, would congress have the ability to override the LI-Vetos when they occur?

If that weren't the case, I sure couldn't support it. But if it is? Yeppers, let 'er rip.
 
Back
Top Bottom