• 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
The president should not have line-item veto and the constitutionality/legality of "executive orders" also should be challenged.

Line-item veto would pass way too much power to the Presidency, would further enhance political payoffs and favors of special interests, and wouldn't solve the problems hoped it would solve.
 
The change that should be made is that the most honest federal agency, the GAO, should be placed under the federal court system's jurisdiction and given law enforcement power. That'd scare the hell out of corrupt politicians.

As it is now, the GAO can find any level of theft or corruption and unless the (political) Justice Department will do something it all comes to nothing. Placing the GAO under the federal courts takes it out of political influence and giving them law enforcement (cop) power takes partisan politics out of it. Then if GAO found theft or corruption, their cop power would give them the power to investigate, ask for subpoenas and take people before a federal grand jury without begging the Executive's Justice Department appointee to do so, and if illegal conduct found take it directly to a Federal Grand Jury - again without hoping the political Justice Department would do so.

Overall, federal law enforcement should be under court jurisdiction, not partisan politician's jurisdiction.
 
Last edited:
A line item veto is entirely contrary to the power of veto as outlined in the constitution. The president is not supposed to have that much say in lawmaking. The veto power is meant to prevent truly outrageous abuses of congressional power, not to stop pork barrel politics. What will stop such additions is if we stop tolerating them. Make sure that the country actually wants the president to veto bills that contain all sorts of amendments that people don't want. Make sure that pork barrel politics get someone voted out. The executive branch already had an enormous amount of new power from the last decade, essentially permitting it to pick and choose which congressional edicts it will carry out. At least the laws exist and can later be used to force a president to do his job. Letting the president pick and choose which laws occur on that kind of level is a HUGE step away from democratic rule and towards a dictatorship.

I would not support line item vetos. They are hugely against what the constitution sets out for the president's veto power.
 
No it doesn't. Not unless the President can add to the legislation. Taking away is limiting enough that congress would still be important.

Line-item veto gives the President significant power to alter legislation. He cannot add anything, but his need to compromise with the legislative branch would almost entirely disappear.
 
A line-item veto looks good on its face -- cut out the wasteful crap while leaving the genuine legislative goodness.

The thing is, as much as we hate pork (or really anything off-topic being tacked onto a highly visible bill), that kind of horse-trading is how things get done in Congress. Every single member is responsible for representing the interests of their constituents, not the interests of the nation as a whole, and since each individual vote only carries so much weight, attaching add-ons to an otherwise popular bill is their best chance for fighting for interests of their specific constituencies.

Not only that, but imagine if a bill granting power to the Executive under very specific circumstances made it to the President's desk and he used this power to eliminate some or all of the restrictions placed on that power. In a split Congress like the one we have, it's unlikely such an action would result in an over-ride.

From the inception of the Constitution until the early 1900s, Congress was viewed as having domain over domestic issues and the President was viewed as merely acting as a check -- if he thought that a bill on his desk was not Constitutional he'd veto it, but generally not otherwise. Since the early 1900s the Presidency has amassed more and more power, some by communicating directly to the nation as a whole, and some through Congressional abdication.

A genuine line-item veto would give the President far too much power and remove virtually all of the tools Congress currently has for horse-trading, compromise and the representation of minority interests.

Many people, among them past Libertarian Presidential candidate Andre Marrou, believe that the line-item veto is already Constitutionally approved. It just hasn't been used/tested.

It has been used, tested, and struck down:

It was used against one provision of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 and two provisions of the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 before being challenged again in two separate cases; one by the City of New York, two hospital associations, one hospital, and two health care unions; the other by a farmers' cooperative from Idaho and an individual member of the cooperative. Senators Byrd, Moynihan,Levin, and Hatfield again opposed the law, this time through Amicus curiæ briefs..


Judge Thomas Hogan of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia combined the cases and declared the lawunconstitutional on February 12, 1998. This ruling was subsequently affirmed on June 25, 1998 by a 6-3 decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case Clinton v. City of New York. Justices Breyer, Scalia, and O'Connor dissented.


Line Item Veto Act of 1996 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
Perhaps. But election year would put the blame where it belongs...on the President's desk. The bridge to nowhere could have cost the president his re-election.



What compromise is there on a bridge to nowhere? (I particularly like that example, as everybody gets it.) Look, it's not working as it stands. How about a trial period? Ha!

Pork spending is approximately 1% or less, of the total budget.

Eliminating 100 Percent of Earmarks Cuts Federal Spending Less Than 0.5 Percent | CNSnews.com
 
Of course the US Code would have to change...and do I think it will happen? No. Snowbells in hell have a better chance of surviving and thriving than responsible government. Cant blame it all on the government though...it starts with the people that put them there.
I agree that it starts with the people who put them there. What did Mencken say? "Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard."
 
What's your point? 1/2% of our annual budget is....wait for it....$17 billion. Have we got better uses for $17 billion than bridges to nowhere?

Not speaking for Gina, I think the point is that giving the Presidency that much authority for the purpose of addressing 0.5% of the annual budget will have many unforeseen consequences. It's using a shotgun to kill a fly and being surprised when injuries result.
 
Not speaking for Gina, I think the point is that giving the Presidency that much authority for the purpose of addressing 0.5% of the annual budget will have many unforeseen consequences. It's using a shotgun to kill a fly and being surprised when injuries result.

Your reasoning gives me pause. I think there are many other examples, though, of bits and pieces of legislation being added to bills in order to pass them through blackmail. I'll have to do some homework. "You want this?? Then you're gunna get this, too!" Seems to me that's not a particularly fair or productive way to run a country...it certainly doesn't work in business. It's not as if a president would not be held absolutely accountable for his decisions...right now, he's not. And neither is Congress.
 
Not all porkbarrel spending is a bridge to nowhere.
CAGW is the source for information about pork-barrel spending. Since 1991, the annual Congressional Pig Book has provided the authoritative list of pork in the federal budget. A "pork" project is a line-item in an appropriations or authorization bill that designates funds for a specific purpose in circumvention of established budgetary procedures. To qualify as pork, a project must meet one of seven criteria that were developed in 1991 by CAGW and the Congresional Porkbusters Coalition.

Here are the 7 criteria:

•Requested by only one chamber of Congress;
•Not specifically authorized;
•Not competitively awarded;
•Not requested by the President;
•Greatly exceeds the President’s budget request or the previous year’s funding;
•Not the subject of congressional hearings; or
•Serves only a local or special interest.

2010 saw $19.6 billion in pork as identified by above. For a complete list of "other bridges to nowhere," click here: 2010 Pig Book Summary
 
Honestly Mag....I find it hard to get angry over the majority of that list. It deals with wheat research/broadband development for rural areas/West Nile Virus Research/potato research.....and this is a website that is obviously against any porkbarreling because the page is littered with snarky comments.
 
Not speaking for Gina, I think the point is that giving the Presidency that much authority for the purpose of addressing 0.5% of the annual budget will have many unforeseen consequences. It's using a shotgun to kill a fly and being surprised when injuries result.

No worries TED, I think the unintended consequences could be very significant and just to address such a miniscule portion of the budget, is definitely over kill.

There is a lot hand wringing over pork. I agree, Bridges to Nowhere are ridiculous, but there are many worthy projects that are supported by "pork barrel" spending.

Your reasoning gives me pause. I think there are many other examples, though, of bits and pieces of legislation being added to bills in order to pass them through blackmail. I'll have to do some homework. "You want this?? Then you're gunna get this, too!" Seems to me that's not a particularly fair or productive way to run a country...it certainly doesn't work in business. It's not as if a president would not be held absolutely accountable for his decisions...right now, he's not. And neither is Congress.

That's the process of political compromise and has been done in governance, since the beginning of time. That's the thing, government is not a business. It's not a for-profit venture.

Of course the president would be held accountable, but not until the next election. In four years a president could do untold damage as using a line-item veto would not be an impeachable offense.
 
Last edited:
Not all porkbarrel spending is a bridge to nowhere.

Your reasoning gives me pause. I think there are many other examples, though, of bits and pieces of legislation being added to bills in order to pass them through blackmail. I'll have to do some homework. "You want this?? Then you're gunna get this, too!" Seems to me that's not a particularly fair or productive way to run a country...it certainly doesn't work in business. It's not as if a president would not be held absolutely accountable for his decisions...right now, he's not. And neither is Congress.

No worries TED, I think the unintended consequences could be very significant and just to address such a miniscule portion of the budget, is definitely over kill.

There is a lot hand wringing over pork. I agree, Bridges to Nowhere are ridiculous, but there are many worthy projects that are supported by "pork barrel" spending.



That's the process of political compromise and has been done in governance, since the beginning of time. That's the thing, government is not a business. It's not a for-profit venture.

Of course the president would be held accountable, but not until the next election. In four years a president could do untold damage as using a line-item veto would not be an impeachable offense.
I totally agree that not all pork is unneeded or unnecessary. But, much is. However, as I read through this thread, I am coming to the conclusion that a better alternative than a line-item veto would be restricting bills to a single subject matter. If an item is truly worthy, then it should still be able to stand on its own merits.

There would still be some tit-for-tat deal making going on, but it would be lessened, and the results would be more transparent. Easier for voters to assess what they legislators really did, and where they really stand, rather than wonder where and when they compromised.
 
Your reasoning gives me pause. I think there are many other examples, though, of bits and pieces of legislation being added to bills in order to pass them through blackmail. I'll have to do some homework. "You want this?? Then you're gunna get this, too!" Seems to me that's not a particularly fair or productive way to run a country...it certainly doesn't work in business. It's not as if a president would not be held absolutely accountable for his decisions...right now, he's not. And neither is Congress.

The system has long been configured in such a way that Congress is able to blame the President and the President is able to blame Congress and they're both able to blame the court system. If you give the President the line-item veto, this won't change the essential dynamic, and you will remove the horse-trading function that gives less powerful Congresspeople the ability to look after the interests of their electorates.

What you'll end up with are power-grabbing bills with the safeguards removed, thus increasing the amount of judicial review (incorrectly called legislating from the bench) necessary to reign in the government, and the party that holds the White House will get the vast majority of the appropriations perks. The Presidency benefits because it becomes even more powerful, and Congress benefits because it gets to pass the buck to the Presidency.
 
Last edited:
Should the President have "line-item veto" power?

No.Because the president will just simply veto what ever he wants and keep what he wants.For example lets take a so called compromise on illegal immigration( if the American people are stupid enough to fall for another so called compromise) that involves amnesty for all the illegals,tax payer aid to help the illegals no longer be illegals , crack downs on the scum who hire illegals as well a crack down on the scum who aid illegals with sanctuary states and cities that aid illegals and a ban on tuition for illegals children. A president that supports amnesty will simply veto all the enforcement measures against illegal immigration such as the crack downs on scum who hire illegals and the scum who aid illegals with sanctuary state and city policies.A politician that is actually against illegal immigration will simply veto any amnesty provisions as well as anything else that encourages illegal immigration. A line item veto is a double edged sword. It hurts you if the president doesn't support what you support and it helps you if the president supports what you support.
 
Last edited:
no, but they should have the power to remove unrelated spending from things like defense bills.

Um, that's pretty much the same thing.

payroll tax-cut bill with a oil pipeline attached??? what kind of bull**** is that?

Without the pipeline thing, the tax cut bill might never have passed. That's the choice sometimes.
 
Your reasoning gives me pause. I think there are many other examples, though, of bits and pieces of legislation being added to bills in order to pass them through blackmail. I'll have to do some homework. "You want this?? Then you're gunna get this, too!" Seems to me that's not a particularly fair or productive way to run a country...it certainly doesn't work in business. It's not as if a president would not be held absolutely accountable for his decisions...right now, he's not. And neither is Congress.

But that's how everything works. It's how business works. It's how life works. You have to compromise. You have to give something in order to get something. Nothing wrong with that.
 
I said yes. This would allow the President to veto only portions of a bill (spending). It would be a good check/balance to the riders that Congress is so use to attaching to anything they can. Besides, once vetoed, if Congress can get the votes, the veto could be overturned.

Congress does not seem to have the will to change. They seem not to have the will to stop pork barrell spending.
 
While I'd rather see rules that say anything in a bill must be related to the name of the the bill, I know Congress is not about to cut off its chief method of sneaking pork to its rich buddies so I vote yes on a line-item veto.
 
no, but they should have the power to remove unrelated spending from things like defense bills.

payroll tax-cut bill with a oil pipeline attached??? what kind of bull**** is that?
A great idea
 
Back
Top Bottom