Would support a line-item veto for the president?

[President Johnson]

Would you support giving the president the authority for a line-item veto, just as 43 governors have?

I would support such a measure to give the president the power to approve only parts of a law.

[Santander]

No, we don't need to blur the lines between the executive and legislative branches.

[Antonio the Sixth]

No, that's a terrible idea.

[HisGrace]

The main effect here would probably be to limit government spending and thus reduce the deficit. SO I'm for it.

[Kingpoleon]

Yes, with it being able to be overridden by three-fifths of both houses. There also needs to be limitations so it can't change the entire extent of the law and mostly just cuts pork spending.

[Associate Justice PiT]

The main effect here would probably be to limit government spending and thus reduce the deficit. SO I'm for it.

     Supposing though that the President gave a damn about controlling spending. I don't see that with either Bush or Obama.

[SWE]

No. The executive is too powerful as it is.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

The main effect here would probably be to limit government spending and thus reduce the deficit. SO I'm for it.

Not necessarily.  This could undercut the kind of Congressional dealmaking that a bill cutting spending might very well need in order to get enough support to pass.

[OSR stands with Israel]

Yes, with it being able to be overridden by three-fifths of both houses. There also needs to be limitations so it can't change the entire extent of the law and mostly just cuts pork spending.

[HisGrace]

The main effect here would probably be to limit government spending and thus reduce the deficit. SO I'm for it.

     Supposing though that the President gave a damn about controlling spending. I don't see that with either Bush or Obama.

Maybe not Obama, but even he might have cut some defense pork attached to other bills. The massive spending bills we have now make it near impossible to go through the budget "line-by-line" like every candidate promises to do without a line item veto.

[Associate Justice PiT]

The main effect here would probably be to limit government spending and thus reduce the deficit. SO I'm for it.

     Supposing though that the President gave a damn about controlling spending. I don't see that with either Bush or Obama.

Maybe not Obama, but even he might have cut some defense pork attached to other bills. The massive spending bills we have now make it near impossible to go through the budget "line-by-line" like every candidate promises to do without a line item veto.

     The all-or-nothing effect is pretty devastating in this era of mega-bills longer than the Bible. Some way to cut into that would be nice.

[Mercenary]

No, way too much power.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

Yes!

[Oldiesfreak1854]

I would.  Why not?  Shouldn't the president be allowed to oppose certain sections of a bill without opposing the whole thing?

[Cory]

 Shouldn't the president be allowed to oppose certain sections of a bill without opposing the whole thing?

Yes. But that's not what we're talking about. This thread is about if the President should have the right to pass only certain sections of a bill into law, thus totally undermining the entire process.

[ElectionsGuy]

Presidents shouldn't get to modify and eliminate certain sections of the law. Nope.

I would.  Why not?  Shouldn't the president be allowed to oppose certain sections of a bill without opposing the whole thing?

That's where he/she can make a cost benefit overall decision.

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

43 states allow it, so it's probably not a bad thing. However, a provision that the president has to either let at least three-fifths of the bill pass or veto the whole thing(so he can't just pick out one line and only approve that and veto everything else) makes sense.

[Lyin' Steve]

I'd rather not give a clever president the ability to manipulate legislation by selectively vetoing parts of it, thus creating a new stipulation for Congress that their bills must be bulletproof.

[Sir Mohamed]

Yes, if only party of legislation are bad or unconstitutional, that should not necessarily affect the rest of the bill. The overriding rules (two-thirds-majority) should not change. However, I would not support the so-called reduction veto.

[VPH]

Only if a Democrat was president

[Torie]

No. It does give the executive too much power. It's up to Congress to fashion spending priorities, not the POTUS.

[Antonio the Sixth]

43 states allow it, so it's probably not a bad thing.

Hahahahahaha, good one.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Yes, but I wouldn't mind having the threshold for overriding a line-item veto be a simply majority vote of both houses.