Mnuchin pitches line-item veto: ‘Congress could pass a rule’

By David Weigel
March 25, 2018

Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin has urged lawmakers to give President Trump a line-item veto, saying on “Fox News Sunday” that it might prevent Democrats from stacking more nondefense discretionary spending into the next must-past budget bill. But Mnuchin’s short exchange with Fox News anchor Chris Wallace also underlined the problem with the idea — a 20-year-old Supreme Court ruling that struck down the line-item veto, finding “no provision in the Constitution that authorizes the president to enact, to amend or to repeal statutes,” after President Bill Clinton used it 82 times. “I think they should give the president a line-item veto,” said Mnuchin, echoing Trump’s comments after he signed last week’s omnibus budget bill. “That’s been ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court,” Wallace said. “Well, again, Congress could pass a rule, okay, that allows them to do it,” Mnuchin said. “It would be a constitutional amendment,” Wallace said. “Chris, we don’t need to get into a debate,” the treasury secretary said. “There’s different ways of doing this.”

Click to expand...

Rogue Valley said:

Mnuchin pitches line-item veto: ‘Congress could pass a rule’

Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin



This is one of the pitfalls of appointing inexperienced elitist's to Cabinet positions. Then again, Mnuchin was only parroting the unconstitutional butt-hurt suggestion of Donald Trump. Kudos to Chris Wallace.

Related: Clinton v. City of New York, 524 U.S. 417 (1998)

Click to expand...

“That’s been ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court,” Wallace said.

“Well, again, Congress could pass a rule, okay, that allows them to do it,” Mnuchin said.

“It would be a constitutional amendment,” Wallace said.

“Chris, we don’t need to get into a debate,” the treasury secretary said. “There’s different ways of doing this.”

Click to expand...

In the closed-door meeting, Mnuchin appeared to exacerbate the anger of House Republicans who opposed clean debt limit extensions, as the treasury secretary appealed to members to do this "for me," according to two members in the meeting.

Florida Republican Ted Yoho told reporters one House Republican told the treasury secretary directly "you know what, unfortunately you don't get voted in or voted out and you can't vote for me."

Click to expand...

Rogue Valley said:

This is one of the pitfalls of appointing inexperienced elitist's to Cabinet positions. Then again, Mnuchin was only parroting the unconstitutional butt-hurt suggestion of Donald Trump. Kudos to Chris Wallace.

Related: Clinton v. City of New York, 524 U.S. 417 (1998)

Click to expand...

Oozlefinch said:

But a line item veto is not Unconstitutional. Otherwise, 44 out of 50 State Governors would not have that power.

Click to expand...

Oozlefinch said:

Interesting that you point out the last time we had such a veto. President Clinton had it for 2 years, and used it a staggering 86 times before the Supreme Court struck it down.

There have been several attempts to bring this back, but the last times, first the Senate voted it down (2006), then in 2009 the Feingold plan got tied up in committee.

But a line item veto is not Unconstitutional. Otherwise, 44 out of 50 State Governors would not have that power.

Click to expand...

Rogue Valley said:

That's not what Mnuchin was pandering. He was speaking of a presidential line-item-veto which is indeed unconstitutional.

Click to expand...

Unitedwestand13 said:

it is not unconstitutional for a governor to have a line-item veto, it is unconstitutional for the presidennt to have a line-item veto.

Click to expand...

Oozlefinch said:

No, it is not Unconstitutional. Only the one that was passed previously was not. Not that the concept itself is.



Once again, no it is not. Simply that the one passed previously was.

But oh please, show me where in the Constitution that it is completely against the Constitution in any way.

Click to expand...

Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States; If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the Objections at large on their Journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such Reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the Bill, it shall be sent, together with the Objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a Law. But in all such Cases the Votes of both Houses shall be determined by Yeas and Nays, and the Names of the Persons voting for and against the Bill shall be entered on the Journal of each House respectively. If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their Adjournment prevent its Return, in which Case it shall not be a Law.Every Order, Resolution, or Vote to which the Concurrence of the Senate and House of Representatives may be necessary (except on a question of Adjournment) shall be presented to the President of the United States; and before the Same shall take Effect, shall be approved by him, or being disapproved by him, shall be repassed by two thirds of the Senate and House of Representatives, according to the Rules and Limitations prescribed in the Case of a Bill.​

Click to expand...

OpportunityCost said:

The veto power of the President is enumerated in the Constitution and it is very specific in its scope. The line item veto is not specified so it is not a power the President has. It would need to be a Constitutional amendment to be stand SCOTUS scrutiny.

Click to expand...

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The House of Representatives voted to give President Barack Obama a limited line-item veto authority on Wednesday in a rare display of bipartisanship on bitterly divisive spending and budget issues.

The House voted 254-173, with 57 Democrats joining Republicans in favoring the bill, which allows the president to propose elimination of individual items in spending legislation and subject them to a separate, second vote by Congress.

Sponsored by the top Republican and Democrat on the House Budget Committee, the line-item veto bill had strong support from the White House. Many presidents have sought line-item vetoes over the years as a tool to chip away at wasteful spending.

Currently, the president must sign or veto spending bills in their entirety.

A Republican-controlled Congress in 1996 gave Democratic President Bill Clinton a full line-item veto authority that required a two-thirds majority to override and reinsert spending measures.

But the Supreme Court ruled it unconstitutional in 1998, saying it took spending powers away from Congress.

The bill passed on Wednesday tries to get around the constitutional problem by subjecting vetoed items to a second vote in Congress.

But its fate is unclear in the Democrat-controlled Senate, where a 60-vote majority is often needed. A Democratic Senate aide said there were currently no plans to advance a companion bill co-sponsored by Republican Senator John McCain and Democratic Senator Tom Carper that has support from both parties.

Click to expand...

Oozlefinch said:

Once again, that particular one was voided, not the concept in and of itself.


https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...-limited-line-item-veto-idUSTRE81801S20120209

If you want to do some in-depth reading on this subject, check out the testimony of Professor Viet Dinh of Georgetown University on the subject.

https://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/cong/31/

You keep going back over the 1996 one, and do not even seem to consider that other solutions are available.

Click to expand...

Rogue Valley said:

Mnuchin pitches line-item veto: ‘Congress could pass a rule’

Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin



This is one of the pitfalls of appointing inexperienced elitist's to Cabinet positions. Then again, Mnuchin was only parroting the unconstitutional butt-hurt suggestion of Donald Trump. Kudos to Chris Wallace.

Related: Clinton v. City of New York, 524 U.S. 417 (1998)

Click to expand...