Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Congress tries to give president line-item veto
Associated Press ^ | 2/8/12 | JIM ABRAMS

Posted on 02/08/2012 12:03:34 PM PST by SmithL

The Republican-controlled House sought Wednesday to give President Barack Obama and his successors the line-item veto, a constitutionally questionable power over the purse that has been sought by Republican and Democrats alike.

The legislation, expected to pass, would allow a president to pick out specific items in spending bills for elimination. Currently, the chief executive must sign or veto spending bills in their entirety. The president's choices for removal would then have to be approved by Congress.

Congress has made several attempts in the past to enact line-item veto bills, saying that surgical cuts to spending bills are useful both in removing wasteful earmarks and in reducing spending. Most state governors have some kind of line-item veto power.

The House bill, offered by Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan, R-Wis., and the top Democrat on the committee, Chris Van Hollen of Maryland, stipulates that all savings from eliminated programs would go to deficit reduction. House Republicans have included the bill as part of a package of measures to overhaul the budget process so as to save money.

In 1996, a Republican-controlled Congress succeeded in giving line-item veto authority to another Democratic president, Bill Clinton. He exercised that authority 82 times, and although Congress overrode his veto on 38 instances, the moves saved the government almost $2 billion.

But in 1998, on a 6-3 vote, the Supreme Court ruled that the law was unconstitutional, saying it violated the principle that Congress, and not the executive branch, holds the power of the purse.

Supporters say the bill has been written to meet constitutional standards.

(Excerpt) Read more at ...

TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Extended News; Front Page News; Government; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: budget; congress; elections; govtabuse; lineitemveto; obama

1 posted on 02/08/2012 12:03:50 PM PST by SmithL
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: All

The 2012 Conservative Battle For America
Has Begun In Earnest
Your Monthly and Quarterly Donations
Help To Keep FR In The Fight !!

Sponsoring FReepers are contributing
$10 Each time a New Monthly Donor signs up!
Get more bang for your FR buck!
Click Here To Sign Up Now!

2 posted on 02/08/2012 12:11:42 PM PST by musicman (Until I see the REAL Long Form Vault BC, he's just "PRES__ENT" Obama = Without "ID")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SmithL

All they have to do is use the wording from the Confederate Constitution:

The President may approve any appropriation and disapprove any other appropriation in the same bill. In such case he shall, in signing the bill, designate the appropriation disapproved, and shall return a copy of such appropriation, with his objections, to the House in which the bill shall have originated; and the same proceedings shall then be had as in case of other bills disapproved by the President.

3 posted on 02/08/2012 12:16:49 PM PST by cotton1706
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cotton1706

What about beating other congressmen with a cane? Is that old practice up for vote? Bringing back that practice would help move things along as well I think.

4 posted on 02/08/2012 12:21:40 PM PST by sam_paine (X .................................)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: sam_paine

I agree whole-heartedly,,,, oh, “cane”? I thought you said “crane”,,, yeah, I guess that’s okay too,,,

5 posted on 02/08/2012 12:33:18 PM PST by lordsofthejungle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: SmithL

I wish a solid conservative Republican President could have the LIV for a one term before Congress ruled it unConstitioonal (whatever that means since one has to have a Constitution, in the first place, in order to rule something UnConstitutional).

6 posted on 02/08/2012 12:34:19 PM PST by Leep (It's gonna be a Newt day!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SmithL
There's a way to give the President "line-item" veto, without changing any law or the Constitution.

All Congress has to do is stop passing "garbage" bills laden with pork and unrelated items.

If a bill doesn't fit on a single piece of paper, it is likely too big. Pass separate bills, each limited to a single subject or appropriation.

The President can veto each one individually.

7 posted on 02/08/2012 12:45:35 PM PST by justlurking (The only remedy for a bad guy with a gun is a good WOMAN (Sgt. Kimberly Munley) with a gun)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SmithL

The Supreme dictators in the black robes have already said no.


8 posted on 02/08/2012 1:09:40 PM PST by LibLieSlayer (Hey repubic elite scumbags... jam mitt up your collective arses!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SmithL

Just another instance of congressmen sworn to uphold the constitution trying to find a way to get around it’s provisions. I would be more impressed if they would pass a constitutional amendment allowing a line item veto or better yet, just don’t approve legislation containing wasteful spending.

9 posted on 02/08/2012 1:17:10 PM PST by etcb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SmithL
The House GOP AGAIN abandoning Constitutional Conservatism.

Throw everyone out who voted for this.

10 posted on 02/08/2012 1:26:00 PM PST by Mariner (War Criminal #18)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SmithL

Dumb idea whose time has not come. The Executive needs less, not more power.

11 posted on 02/08/2012 1:28:53 PM PST by 1010RD (First, Do No Harm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SmithL

“...the legislation would allow a president to pick out specific items in spending bills for elimination.
The president’s choices for removal would then have to be approved by Congress...”
Why don’t they just rewrite the whole constitution while they’re at it?

12 posted on 02/08/2012 1:48:35 PM PST by Repeal The 17th (We have met the enemy and he is us.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Repeal The 17th

First off sign me up to repeal 17. If the senate represented the states we would see and end to unfounded state mandates.

I believe the line item vetoed would go back to both chambers for a vote to override the veto. That means that the authority isn’t relegated to the executive branch. it just allows legislation to move forward without all of the leaches attached.

I liked the idea in ‘94 and I still like the idea. Most of the problems we have is people “adding” garbage as the bill proceeds up the hill.

13 posted on 02/08/2012 2:15:09 PM PST by vg0va3 (I don't plan to quit the fight until it is finally over. Although, I am getting tired...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: SmithL

This is Congresscritters saying, “Stop us before we spend.”

14 posted on 02/08/2012 3:50:20 PM PST by savedbygrace (But God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 1010RD

Agree. There is no need to blur separation of powers any more than they are.

15 posted on 02/08/2012 4:58:44 PM PST by Jacquerie (No court will save us from ourselves.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: cotton1706

They added that to the confederate constitution because it was one of the recognized flaws in the Federal Constitution.

I on the other hand think such a line item veto while making budget balancing more feasible would happen at the expense of additional favoritism.

The president would gain a greater degree of power in the political spoils system.

I think a far more direct & practical approach to the problem of budgeting is simply passing the debt directly to the individual voters. Holding collective debt is at its root an amoral act, as it imposes future generations with financial burden of supporting the present.

So at least divide up the Federal debt every year by State in proportion to their representation and let the States further subdivide that debt among their population.

Then politicians should be held accountable for the amount of money they spent. Rather then letting them hand their successor that burden, while they reap the reward.

In politics mortal hazards like this are practical hazards.

16 posted on 02/08/2012 5:11:28 PM PST by Monorprise
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: SmithL

The DC Congress needs to be replaced with horses who would do nothing at all to damage the Constitutional seperations of powers of the 3 parts of government. What is wrong the the idiot rino liberal Congress fools who voted to allow the dictator obamanation take yet more power from Congress. I really, really hate DC.

17 posted on 02/08/2012 5:19:25 PM PST by kindred (Jesus Christ is the Lord God and Messiah of Israel, a present help in time of trouble.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Click the Smoke       Thank you, JoeProBono

He's cute and tiny
But they grow up so fast

Become a monthly donor and kill the FReepathon dragons
Sponsors will contribute $10
For each new monthly sign-up

18 posted on 02/08/2012 5:48:30 PM PST by TheOldLady (FReepmail me to get ON or OFF the ZOT LIGHTNING ping list)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: cotton1706

congress is made up of idiots...the SCOTUS already knocked this out out of the park during the Reagan adm...with a resounding NOPE. No line item veto for president, he either vetos, sign’s or does a pocket veto...he cannot tamper with the legislative branch....

19 posted on 02/08/2012 6:00:38 PM PST by goat granny
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: All

What are these people smoking?


You can not eliminate the requirement that the president be a “natural born citizen” simply by passing a resolution declaring that Obama and McCain are “natural born citizens.”

If asked if the individual mandate in Obamacare is actually constitutional, you can’t just blubber, “Are you serious?” “Are you serious?”

The legislative branch can not shift its budgetary
responsibility statutorily by delegating part of the power of the purse to the executive branch.

I need a laugh to brighten my day. Tell me once again that the Constitution isn’t ice cold and stone dead.

20 posted on 02/09/2012 7:58:34 AM PST by Art II Sec 1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson