Line Item Veto

[Ebowed]

Do you support line item vetoes?

[© tweed]

What does this mean?  A cashier can legally prohibit you from purchasing an item in a store?  I haven't heard this term before.

[Ebowed]

A president is supposed to sign some legislation passed by Congress but doesn't like one part of the bill... so instead of vetoing the whole thing he just vetoes the part he doesn't like.

[A18]

What does this mean? A cashier can legally prohibit you from purchasing an item in a store? I haven't heard this term before.

It's the authority of a government executive (president, governor, etc.) to reject individual provisions of a bill, and approve others.

[© tweed]

A president is supposed to sign some legislation passed by Congress but doesn't like one part of the bill... so instead of vetoing the whole thing he just vetoes the part he doesn't like.

OK thanks.

I'd say no then.

[Hitchabrut]

Definitely. We must not sacrifice what is correct for what is the simplest option.

[Emsworth]

Even aside from it being unconstitutional, no, I don't support it for most legislation. The President should not have any formal power over legislation beyond the veto. Perhaps there should be a line item veto on appropriations bills, but not on any others.

In any event, a constitutional amendment would be necessary, unless Congress adopts some sort of informal procedure whereby the line item veto could be unofficially used before final passage.

[A18]

For appropriations in any bill, yes. Otherwise, no.

[Giant Saguaro]

I doubt its constitutionality, and I don't trust politicians to apply common sense as I understand it in vetoing what they don't like and allowing to stay what they do like, so I vote no. A bill is not a buffet. And some get to stuff themselves with pork while others don't? Nah.

Pork happens. And if it's too nonsenical, veto the whole damn bill. I would in a heartbeat. But that basic idea has been going on forever, this is how politicians get re-elected beyond ideology. They go back and say see, I did this, this, and that.

[dazzleman]

For appropriations in any bill, yes. Otherwise, no.

^^^^^^^^^

Congress has often abused its power by tacking spending onto wholly unrelated bills.  This would make that tactic meaningless.

There was a line item veto for a few years in the 1990s.  Ironically, it was given to President Clinton by a Republican congress.  But it was ruled unconstitutional.

[A18]

In any event, a constitutional amendment would be necessary, unless Congress adopts some sort of informal procedure whereby the line item veto could be unofficially used before final passage.

It has long been acknowledged that the president can cancel a law that itself authorizes the president to cancel it. Thus, I do not believe Clinton v. City of New York was rightly decided, unless that precedent is to be overturned.

[Virginian87]

I doubt the constitutionality of the line-item veto.  I question whether it would undermine the authority of the legislative branch and give too much power to the executive.

[A18]

I direct you to Field v. Clark (1892).

The Tariff Act of 1890: "[The president] shall have the power, and it shall be his duty, to suspend, by proclamation to that effect, the provisions of this act relating to the free introduction of such sugar, molasses, coffee, tea, and hides, the production of such country, for such time as he shall deem just, and in such case and during such suspension duties shall belevied, collected, and paid upon sugar, molasses, coffee, tea, and hides, the product of or exported from such designated country, as follows, namely: ..."

The Court upheld the constitutionality of that act.

I think we have to separate delegation of legislative authority from giving the president due flexibility to carry out an intention of the legislature.

[Emsworth]

I will admit that precedent does allow the cancellation of law. However, I feel that allowing the President to unilaterally amend the law is indeed unconstitutional, for the Constitution vests all legislative power in Congress, and does not authorize the delegation thereof to other bodies.

I would agree that there needs to be some flexibility here.

[Virginian87]

I will admit that precedent does allow the cancellation of law. However, I feel that allowing the President to unilaterally amend the law is indeed unconstitutional, for the Constitution vests all legislative power in Congress, and does not authorize the delegation thereof to other bodies.

I would agree that there needs to be some flexibility here.

I will have to consult the Constitution and some Supreme Court cases, but that seems about right.

[Giant Saguaro]

FYI,

The Line Item Veto Act of 1996, which took effect in January 1997, was struck down in June 1998 on the grounds that such a shift from the Congress to the executive branch would require an amendment to the constitution. Knew I had that info around somewhere.

I'm in agreement with the Supreme Court.

[A18]

I will admit that precedent does allow the cancellation of law. However, I feel that allowing the President to unilaterally amend the law is indeed unconstitutional, for the Constitution vests all legislative power in Congress, and does not authorize the delegation thereof to other bodies.

I would agree that there needs to be some flexibility here.

Ah, but he is not amending it. He is canceling a portion of it, as he was authorized by the legislature to do in order to reduce the budget deficit.

[Emsworth]

Ah, but he is not amending it. He is canceling a portion of it, as he was authorized by the legislature to do in order to reduce the budget deficit.

If the legislature specifies the goal of reducing the deficit (as it presumably did in the law struck down in Clinton v. New York), then I believe that the line-item veto may be constitutional justified. (But I am not convinced.) However, by allowing the President to cancel provisions at will, without any guidance whatsoever, seems to involve the unconstitutional delegation of legislative power to the executive. (The most significant precedent on non-delegation, I think, is Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States, although it seems to have been partially repudiated since the switch in time that saved nine.)

[opebo]

Certainly not!  The executive branch is already far, far too powerful.

[MODU]

I support it.  Just like with a regular veto, a line-item veto could be overturned by a super-majority in Congress.  This keeps the President from going rogue while at the same time prevents items which he doesn't believe in from being passed.  So many good bills are either vetoed or fail to make it out of Congress due to pork or other provisions tied onto it which no one wants passed.  Either give the President line-item or require Congress to limit their bills to one specific issue with no riders attached.

[Virginian87]

Certainly not!  The executive branch is already far, far too powerful.

If the Democrats controlled the White House, would you support it then?

[RBH]

I think 47 states have line item vetos.

And here's the LIV amendment in Missouri;

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[dazzleman]

I support it.  Just like with a regular veto, a line-item veto could be overturned by a super-majority in Congress.  This keeps the President from going rogue while at the same time prevents items which he doesn't believe in from being passed.  So many good bills are either vetoed or fail to make it out of Congress due to pork or other provisions tied onto it which no one wants passed.  Either give the President line-item or require Congress to limit their bills to one specific issue with no riders attached.

I thought it took a 2/3 majority in congress to overturn a regular veto?

[A18]

A two-thirds majority is a supermajority.

[AuH2O]

I think a lot of people don't really understand what a line-item veto is, exactly.

For a program to even have a line item is fairly significant (though obviously the degree to which a line is funded varies greatly). It usually denotes a distinct nature to that program, i.e. it is not a direct subsidiary of another agency.

In almost every case, a line-item veto would not be intended to defund that item. The rationale would be to send it back to Congress for reconsideration without stopping the entire bill.

I don't see how in the world that is Unconstitutional. If Congress had the time, it technically could pass every line independently. As a matter of practicality, they do not and really cannot do that (and in the case of some agencies it could cause problems).

So I definitely support it.