• 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!

Does the POTUS have line-item veto powers per the Constitution?

Why can't we have both and include a swimsuit contest in the elections??? :mrgreen:

Oh no, not this year especially. Seeing Trump and Clinton in swimsuits would cause immediate erectile dysfunction in the entire population (women too).
 
The line item veto has always been a terrible idea.

Imagine congress worked hard on putting together an important piece of bi-partisan legislation. Part of the process involves making concessions and adding things one side wanted but the other didn't. Then they send the bill to the president and the president uses his line-item power to strip out all the sections that the other party wanted but his didn't. So much for the compromise! Congress knows this is what would happen, so in order to pass legislation they would have to involve the president in the discussions in order to extract a promise from hum or her not to veto specific items. This has the effect of firmly embedding the executive branch in legislative matters, breaking separation of powers. It's at least problematic constitutionally, and it's a bad idea whether it's constitutional or not.
 
Ok, Clinton v. City of New York, 524 U.S. 417 (1998) is the case. I did something you really aren't supposed to do, which is to read the syllabus to the decision rather than the whole thing, but I just don't have the time. Sounds like the Court held that line-item veto violates the presentment clause. There is no constitutional grant of authority to the President to amend or repeal.

An earlier case, Raines v. Byrd, 521 U.S. 811 (1997) was thrown out on standing grounds. Members of congress brought that particular suit (no particularized injury to them, hence, no case and controversy, hence no standing in an Article 3 court like SCOTUS)

Well, but was the majority decision correct? The majority decision cannot logically be correct on the basis it's a majority decision or because the 5 or more justices "said so."
 
No. (apparently I have to add more characters in order for my post to be valid, but the first two answered your question).

Did the "first two" answer the question? A Supreme Court opinion was cited, in which 5 or more justices opined the Constitution does not confer such authority to the executive or permit Congress to confer such authority to the President, but this merely tells an outcome. This does not tell us the opinion of the 5 or more justices was correct or correct to some degree of probability. The question was framed in regards to what the Constitution conferred, and not what the Court has said or decided in a case. Unless we presume the Court has never made an erroneous interpretation of the Constitution, then it is possible the Court made an error in interpretation here. What the Court said should be examined and not presumed to be correct or accurate as it relates to what the Constitution says.
 
Does the POTUS have line-item veto powers per the Constitution?

Back in 1992 I was listening to a radio talk show and they were interviewing Andre Marrou, that year's Libertarian Presidential candidate*. He said that the POTUS has line-item veto power per the Constitution, but for reasons unknown to him no President had ever used them. He said that as President, he would use them. (He didn't get elected, of course, but that's another topic for another thread.)

Is/was he correct?

*-Please keep the pros and cons of Libertarianism out of this, too. There are other threads for that, as well. This thread is about supposed line-item veto powers.

The Constitution is first and foremost a contract. If the executive power of the line item veto exists in the Constitution then quote it. In contractual law, if something does not exist in the contract, then it does not exist at all.
 
Back
Top Bottom