Skip to comments.House votes to give Obama limited line-item veto [The House voted 254-173, with 57 Democrats]
Posted on 02/08/2012 5:05:02 PM PST by Sub-Driver
House votes to give Obama limited line-item veto 7:21pm EST
By David Lawder
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.
(Excerpt) Read more at reuters.com ...
What have I missed here? And why would they vote to give the king any more power than he has already taken?
“Harry, what am I supposed to do with this?”
Hardly rare since they've done nothing this entire time but kiss his behind.
I wonder what the GOOBers have been smoking. They need to spread some around to the taxpayers.
Every one, both democrat and republican, who passed this bill are damn traitors, idiots, fools and liars and should be run out of America for the rest of their ignorant dumb as a bag of rocks stupidity.
What is wrong with the DC Congress. Is the water poisoned there. Has the idiots of the rino side lost every lick of sense they have?
Good Lord, are they crazy?
Giving a liberal an opportunity to CUT spending and reduce the size/scope of government in an election year is a symbolic gesture at most. Is prevents Obama from campaigning on rhetoric against “wasteful Washington spending”, when Obama holds a line-item veto pen.
Honestly name one thing Obama is going to cut this year?
I do believe they put stupid into the Washington DC water supply.
WHAT THE HELL IS GOING ON HERE?!!!
Ever play poker?
Obama needs to be impeached not given more power.
Obama is piling on trillions more in debt on us, letting in millions of immigrants, growing the government , sending our jobs to China,censoring the Internet with ACTA, and has committed many other crimes against America.Obama must be impeached. He has abused Power using the EPA, ACTA, and net neutrality to go around Congress and the people.
The left and Obama want to destroy the U.S. border ,U.S. sovereignty and so the U.S.: they are doing it with illegals, immigrants and "free trade"
Fools. They just made themselves obsolete.
“Honestly name one thing Obama is going to cut this year?”
Amy, Navy, Air Force, Marines...
I play Chess.
So what do you think, the repubbies are bluffing and really won’t shoot themselves in the head?
To put him on the spot and force him to make choices. He can no longer blame congress on spending issues. If it was to Obama’s advantage it would have never come up and 173 dems would not have voted against it.
Though it sounds like typical Democrat plottingyou're right! In an election year, this puts Obama front and center on every issue. He can line-item-veto nothing and will appear even worse.
Why give Obama a line-item veto power when the Dems won’t even give him a budget to use it on?
Honestly name one thing Obama is going to cut this year?
The DOD & NASA budgets?
Why these guys would give BO any more power at all is beyond me.
Please, Senate Republicans, kill this idiocy.
That way...they can present bills that they themselves despise, but want to appear to be on the side of their constituents, but guarantee that they will be vetoed; when they are they can squeal that it wasn’t their fault.
Note to Democrat_media:
You normally make posts' that are reasonable and make sense, B-U-T, I feel you went over the edge on this one. You said 2 things that are a little .... hmmmm..... let me just say: DUH.
# 1. "Obama needs to be impeached not given more power."
# 2. "The left and Obama want to destroy the U.S. border ,U.S. sovereignty and so the U.S.: they are doing it with illegals, immigrants and "free trade". "
Concerning # 1....who the hell would vote to impeach him? Definately not a single democrat, nor the likes of RINO's Brown, McCain, Hatch, Cochran, Wicker, Lugar, Snow, Collins, etc.....not even on a good day !!
On # 2, who do you think has been going along with and encouraging obama and Reids' a$$holes? The same RINO's mentioned in # 2 above.
McCain is the best thing that has ever happened to obama. They are a "stealth" tag team and Joe Biden is probably jealous as hell of McCain !!
Not exactly a line item veto, but more a presidential power to require a second vote on specific items. Didn't see anything that would require anything more than a majority vote to agree or disagree during a second vote.
Honestly name one thing Obama is going to cut this year?
Projects in Republican districts?
Every yes vote must be removed from office.
This is likely to pass the Senate and would certainly be signed by POTUS.
This makes sense.
Now Obama’s got zero excuses for not passing a budget. Congress sends it to him, and he vetoes the stuff he wants to veto.
It then goes back to Congress for a second vote. As such, it isn’t really a veto, in that it doesn’t get overriden.
The stuff he wants to cut goes into a bill, or several bills for up and down votes.
I don’t see a problem with this.
... a rug.
We need term limits on Congress (no ‘grandfather’ clause) and a line-item veto. Thanks Sub-Driver.
I heard something about this awhile back but I never thought they would go through with it. The republicans have now merged with the democrats. Its just a two headed hydra at this point.
Congress just approved the use of drones to start flying surveillance in the US so that means the republicans had to let it pass through the House.
o put him on the spot and force him to make choices..................
This will force Zer0 to take the Chinese menu and pick two items from the left column, and two from the right column, and he lives or dies based on his individual choices.
Ain’t no more blamin’ the whitey’s of congress for the death of Amerika - it be up to you Zer0!
Why? They wouldn’t give it to Bush, if I remember correctly!
This is SO bogus ...
In 1998, Justice Stevens [liberal Democrat] delivered the opinion in Clinton v. City of New York that declared the Line Item Veto Bill of 1996 unconstitutional. The pertinent passages follow and MY commment follows the passages:
"after a bill has passed both Houses of Congress, but before it become[s] a Law, it must be presented to the President. If he approves it, 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. Art. I, §7, cl. 2.28 His return of a bill, which is usually described as a veto, is subject to being overridden by a two-thirds vote in each House."
"There are important differences between the Presidents return of a bill pursuant to Article I, §7, and the exercise of the Presidents cancellation authority pursuant to the Line Item Veto Act. The constitutional return takes place before the bill becomes law; the statutory cancellation occurs after the bill becomes law. The constitutional return is of the entire bill; the statutory cancellation is of only a part. Although the Constitution expressly authorizes the President to play a role in the process of enacting statutes, it is silent on the subject of unilateral Presidential action that either repeals or amends parts of duly enacted statutes."
"Our first President understood the text of the Presentment Clause as requiring that he either approve all the parts of a Bill, or reject it in toto. What has emerged in these cases from the Presidents exercise of his statutory cancellation powers, however, are truncated versions of two bills that passed both Houses of Congress. They are not the product of the finely wrought procedure that the Framers designed."
"Neither are we persuaded by the Governments contention that the Presidents authority to cancel new direct spending and tax benefit items is no greater than his traditional authority to decline to spend appropriated funds. The Government has reviewed in some detail the series of statutes in which Congress has given the Executive broad discretion over the expenditure of appropriated funds. For example, the First Congress appropriated sum[s] not exceeding specified amounts to be spent on various Government operations. See, e.g., Act of Sept. 29, 1789, ch. 23, §1, 1 Stat. 95; Act of Mar. 26, 1790, ch. 4, §1, 1 Stat. 104; Act of Feb. 11, 1791, ch. 6, 1 Stat. 190. In those statutes, as in later years, the President was given wide discretion with respect to both the amounts to be spent and how the money would be allocated among different functions. It is argued that the Line Item Veto Act merely confers comparable discretionary authority over the expenditure of appropriated funds. The critical difference between this statute and all of its predecessors, however, is that unlike any of them, this Act gives the President the unilateral power to change the text of duly enacted statutes. None of the Acts predecessors could even arguably have been construed to authorize such a change."
"Third, our decision rests on the narrow ground that the procedures authorized by the Line Item Veto Act are not authorized by the Constitution. The Balanced Budget Act of 1997 is a 500-page document that became Public Law 10533 after three procedural steps were taken: (1) a bill containing its exact text was approved by a majority of the Members of the House of Representatives; (2) the Senate approved precisely the same text; and (3) that text was signed into law by the President. The Constitution explicitly requires that each of those three steps be taken before a bill may become a law. Art. I, §7. If one paragraph of that text had been omitted at any one of those three stages, Public Law 10533 would not have been validly enacted. If the Line Item Veto Act were valid, it would authorize the President to create a different lawone whose text was not voted on by either House of Congress or presented to the President for signature. Something that might be known as Public Law 10533 as modified by the President may or may not be desirable, but it is surely not a document that may become a law pursuant to the procedures designed by the Framers of Article I, §7, of the Constitution."
"If there is to be a new procedure in which the President will play a different role in determining the final text of what may become a law, such change must come not by legislation but through the amendment procedures set forth in Article V of the Constitution. Cf. U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton, 514 U.S. 779, 837 (1995)."
ALL this new STUPID bill does is [POSSIBLY] REQUIRE AT LEAST THREE separate bills to be written and AT LEAST THREE votes to be taken by the House and the Senate. Here is the reasoning:
The House and the Senate pass the FIRST budget bill and send it to the President for signature.
NORMALLY, he EITHER signs it [and it becomes law]. IF this happens, NO OTHER action is taken. OR, the President returns it unsigned to Congress [he vetoes it].
NOTE: IF, he were to strike out EVEN one provision and THEN sign it, the bill WOULD NOT BE LAW - IT WOULD BE NULL AND VOID because the text of the bill would have changed [Clinton v. City of New York]. This is UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
SO, here is what MUST happen to AVOID unconstitutionality [IF the President objects to some provisions]:
1. The House and the Senate pass a FIRST budget bill [FIRST budget bill - Vote #1] and send it to the President.
2. The President objects to some provisions and returns the bill to Congress.
3. The House and the Senate THEN strip out the objectionable provisions and vote AGAIN [SECOND budget bill - Vote #2]. The SECOND budget bill is then sent to the President for signature.
4. The President then signs the SECOND budget bill [that DOES NOT contain the objectionable provisions]. It becomes law.
5. The House and the Senate then CREATE a THIRD budget bill [containing whatever provisions objected to by the President that Congress STILL wants to become law]. THEN, both Houses pass it [THIRD budget bill - Vote #3] and send it to the President.
6. Since the THIRD budget bill is a NEW bill, the President EITHER sign it [and it becomes law], OR he can return it to Congress WITHOUT signature [he vetoes it].
7. If this happens, GO TO ITEM #3. CIRCULAR FIRNG SQUAD !!!
Current democratic party= Beast
Current Republican party= false prophet
“Congress sends it to him, and he vetoes the stuff he wants to veto.”
Reid won’t let a budget out of the Senate. It won’t be getting to hussein.
Why will this be any more Constitutional than the other few times it’s been tried?
Because the Supremes are Barack-o-philes, too?
Weapons research? That's what he promised in 2008. He has not yet finished destroying the military.
The only thing I can think at this time, is that the Republocrats are hoping that the Obama Alligator eats them last.
Correct. There is the Republocrat Elite, and then there is us.
“Reid wont let a budget out of the Senate. It wont be getting to hussein.”
Correctamundo. The stick has been inserted and broken off now. Four years - an entire administration - without a single budget by the time the election comes around.
“And we even gave you the line item veto! We did EVERYTHING WE COULD. Your administration, by the utter damage you’ve left behind, LOOKS like something a guy that has never had to live according to a budget would leave behind. Unprepared for the office is one thing, but I’m not sure the American people knew that the problem was likely you still have the fiscal discipline of a sophomore frat brother.”