Posted on 02/08/2012 5:05:02 PM PST by Sub-Driver
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 President’s “return” of a bill pursuant to Article I, §7, and the exercise of the President’s 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 President’s 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 Government’s contention that the President’s 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 Act’s 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 105—33” 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 105—33 would not have been validly enacted. If the Line Item Veto Act were valid, it would authorize the President to create a different law–one 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 105—33 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?
Military spending
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 won’t let a budget out of the Senate. It won’t 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.”
Shouldn’t they be cut to at least pre-Iraq war levels?
Have you forgotten?
The Constitution is no longer in effect.
The truth of the matter is obama can already do anything he wants. Just sign an executive order.
“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.”
I think you’re right on this one! Obama can no longer sit back and play victim when he has the power to actually eliminate some spending. This way he can be burned on the Pub side for refusing to Veto and be burned on the Dem side if he should actually use the pen on one of their Pet Projects. The “don’t blame me” President will find it more difficult to dodge responsibility no matter which side of the aisle he comes down on.
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.