Expansion of Presidential Line Item Veto Power Amendment[Passed/Sent to Regions]

[Sam Spade]

For the sixth debate slot for Emergency/Forum Affairs legislation, I am continuing down the line of bills the executive has proposed towards these subjects.

If someone wishes to challenge my action, they may do so per Article IV, Section 2, Clause 3 of the OSPR, which reads as follows:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The legislation is presented below.


Expansion of Presidential Line Item Veto Power Amendment

Article I, Section 3, Clause 4 of the Constitution shall be amended to read as follows:

Whensoever the Senate shall pass a bill and present it to the President, he shall have the option to amend the bill and return it to the Senate in amended form. The President shall have this option only once with any particular bill presented to him. The sponsor of the bill shall then have the following options:

(a) motion to approve the President’s redraft by simple majority and return it to the President for his signature or veto – should this motion fail, the bill, as it was prior to being redrafted, shall be returned to the President for his signature or veto;

(b) motion to reject the President’s redraft in it’s entirety by simple majority and return it to the President for his signature or veto – should this motion fail, debate on the bill, in its redrafted form, shall resume in the Senate;

(c) direct for resumed debate on the bill as presented to the president;

(d) withdraw the bill.

[Јas]

At the centre of our election campaign was the need to regenerate the Atlasian presidency. Power in Atlasia lies in the Senate, it acts almost without counterbalance. I want to empower the President to make it a position genuinely worth persuing as a political office.

While I'm happy to see the Senate debate and work with the draft I have put forward, I hope that the body recognises that there is a need to encourage greater Presidential interaction with the legislative process and that they present an amendment to the Atlasian people for ratification which broadly achieves the goal in mind.

[DownWithTheLeft]

I am very in favor of line-item veto, the bill is well-written to allow for the president to not be omnipotent with his power.  However, I think we may want to add that the original sponsor of the bill has the choice, not the co-sponsor, however, this amendment be frivolous.

[Sam Spade]

As I have said before, I will oppose this bill as presently worded.

I will be drafting amendments to make something that I could vote for.

I am also personally leery of this expansion of Presidential power.

[Keystone Phil]

I will wait to see the amendments Senator Sam Spade to determine whether or not I will support this bill in the current form.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Senators, I rise in opposition to this proposed Amendment. I am, of course, opposed in principle to the very idea line-item veto and as such my opposition to this expansion of should be of no surprise to anyone here.

But I have other concerns, perhaps of a more political nature, to this suggested change to the Constitution; I feel that most of Atlasia's problems stem from our governmental institutions growing ever more distant from the the people, not from the concentration of too much power in one branch of government over another, while this Amendment is almost entirely concerned with shifting the power from the Legislature to the Executive, and as such I fully agree with the PPT's concerns about this, in my opinion unwarranted and dramatic, expansion of Presidential power.

This Administration may have come to power on the back of an impressive election victory, but winning elections, even by landslides, is no justification for power grabs, no matter how well (or badly in this case) hidden these power grabs might be.

[Јas]

But I have other concerns, perhaps of a more political nature, to this suggested change to the Constitution; I feel that most of Atlasia's problems stem from our governmental institutions growing ever more distant from the the people, not from the concentration of too much power in one branch of government over another, while this Amendment is almost entirely concerned with shifting the power from the Legislature to the Executive, and as such I fully agree with the PPT's concerns about this, in my opinion unwarranted and dramatic, expansion of Presidential power.

I certainly don't feel that this alone is a panacea to Atlasia's ills - it is not after all, alone in the raft of forum affairs legislation I have submitted for consideration. Other elements of said legislation, do attempt to increase the connection between active citizen and government - this amendment is submitted because I feel that the Presidency is simply too weak as an organ of government in Atlasia.

This Administration may have come to power on the back of an impressive election victory,

Thank you

but winning elections, even by landslides, is no justification for power grabs, no matter how well (or badly in this case) hidden these power grabs might be.

I make no attempt to hide what the amendment is about - the Senate is (IMO) too powerful. I don't believe there is sufficient population to justify a second legislative house. In the absence of the practicability of said option, increasing the ability of the President to actively involve himself into the political process seems to me a good move.

For too long we have had Presidential elections campaigning on the idea that the Atlasian Presidency is a powerful office, only for the incumbents to find themselves adrift, largely capable only of recommending certain appointments. The veto is the only tool at the President's disposal when dealing with the Senate - something I believe to be a rather blunt instrument.

Why not let the President engage more constructively in (though obviously not control) the legislative process? This house would remain the most important organ of government even if this proposal were to pass. The procedures outlined would not allow the President to railroad any measures through, merely force the Senate to have regard to his voice.

I think the 'game' would benefit from an engaged Presidency, from further political debate and indeed political conflict.

I want the Presidency to be worth fighting for, not as a figurehead/popularity contest, but as an important Atlasian political office. I feel this measure will help accomplish that and that is why I commend it to the Senate.

[Sam Spade]

I have not had time to write the amendment.  Hopefully, I will get to it soon.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I make no attempt to hide what the amendment is about - the Senate is (IMO) too powerful.

I don't remember you voicing this opinion, which I don't entirely disagree with, when you were a Senator yourself.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Does it? Why? And why in such a negative way?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

True. But so what? It occurs to me that the problem here is with the office of President, not with the Senate (not that the Senate doesn't have some serious issues of its own).

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The first statement here is not true.

The second statement is true, of course, but the proposed changes are no less blunt.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

A veto, of any sort, is not constructive.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

He has the power to do that anyway.

[Јas]

I make no attempt to hide what the amendment is about - the Senate is (IMO) too powerful.

I don't remember you voicing this opinion, which I don't entirely disagree with, when you were a Senator yourself.

The issue simply didn’t arise. We did though campaign on a platform of forum affairs reform with a focus on revitalising the Presidency. After which I introduced an agenda to meet these aims. Many of the other items therein were also never touched on during my Senate tenure – but this does not (I feel) reflect on the merits or otherwise of the various proposals.

In the absence of the practicability of said option, increasing the ability of the President to actively involve himself into the political process seems to me a good move.

Does it? Why? And why in such a negative way?

Yes, the increased involvement of the President in legislative matters is, I feel, a good idea. Unicameral legislatures, IMO, tend to be too powerful. Atlasia cannot support a bicameral legislature given it’s current population level. Presidential campaigns are oft fought on political issues where really it is the Senate that will decide on such matters. I want to raise the power of the Presidency such that he can have greater influence in legislative matters – thus both, somewhat diminishing the power of the Senate and raising the ability of the Presidency to meet the expectations of the electorate.

I don’t grant your premise that this is attempted in a negative way.

The veto is the only tool at the President's disposal when dealing with the Senate - something I believe to be a rather blunt instrument.

The first statement here is not true.

The second statement is true, of course, but the proposed changes are no less blunt.

Without the use (or threatened use) of the veto, the President has no more influence in Senate matters than any other citizen. What other options does he have?

Nor do I grant the premise that the proposal is itself a blunt instrument. It is effectively the power to put forward an amendment which must be considered.

As far as I can see, the proposal would increase Presidential influence in legislative considerations – but the Senate would continue to retain the power of initiative and ultimately the power to accept or reject the president’s recommendations. To me, the Senate would remain the dominant force in government, but the Presidency would be able to return a more nuanced verdict on the legislation it is presented with – rather than simple acceptance or rejection. I fail to see how this would be in any way ‘blunt’.

Why not let the President engage more constructively in (though obviously not control) the legislative process?

A veto, of any sort, is not constructive.

That’s as may be, though the amendment could probably have been more aptly named. It is more I suppose alteration of the power of line item veto (which up to now has been little more than a theoretical power) into power to put an ultimate amendment before the Senate. Note, indeed that there is no special majority required to accept or overrule the President.

This house would remain the most important organ of government even if this proposal were to pass. The procedures outlined would not allow the President to railroad any measures through, merely force the Senate to have regard to his voice.

He has the power to do that anyway.

Again, short or using or threatening veto, the President’s opinions are of little concern. Under this proposal, the Senate would have to consider and vote on Presidential considerations.

[Sam Spade]

I haven't had a chance to write the amendment (yet), but I am posting my response posts to Jas in the Protest and Analysis thread about an acceptable alternative.  I curious to hear thoughts on this idea.

Here is what I have in mind:

1. If the President vetoes and proposes a "redraft", the sponsor may choose to 1) file an "approve the redraft" motion or 2) withdraw the legislation.

2. If the sponsor wishes to file an "approve the redraft" motion and the motion is approved, then the redrafted bill will be returned to the Prez.

3. If the Senate rejects the "approve the redraft" motion, the sponsor may file a second motion:  Whether to 1) send the original legislation back to the Prez or 2) resume debate on the original legislation, not the "redraft".  (which can be proposed as an amendment, if someone cares to).  If the sponsor at this time wishes to withdraw the legislation, he may.

It would need to be reworded, but this could essentially be amended by adding a little language to the Constitution allowing the President to "redraft" any legislation presented to him, which would then be sent back to the Senate for approval or rejection.

The rest could be dealt with in Senate rules.    I would have to work out the language.  And I know this is more pro-Senate than otherwise.

And my explanation:

Because this way gives the Senate body much more power over the bill than the sponsor - if you don't like sponsors, that's the way to go.  However, it does assure that the sponsor has one important power - withdrawing the legislation whenever he wants (not during votes obviously), which acts as a balance towards weird Presidential rewrites that may have Senate support, but not sponsor support. 

In my OSPR rewrite, I intend to work out this section, b/c sponsors should really have two powers - withdrawing his sponsored legislation and adding sponsors and they should impact each other.  No more.

Moreover, it harmonizes a Presidential veto procedurally (the sponsor has to file a motion to override or withdraw the legislation there too).  And it actually simplifies the whole process and eliminates loopholes.  For example, if the sponsor were to file a motion to reject (b) under your proposal and the rest of the Senate wanted to approve the bill, we would be forced to go back to debate again and approve again with amendments.  Or if the Senate wanted to remove the bill back into debate and the sponsor filed a motion to approve the "redraft", the Senate would have no power to return to debate.

In my creation, the Senate either votes to accept the Prez's redraft or not.  Then if the Senate chooses not to, it can choose to either send the Prez the original bill or return to the debate floor.  The sponsor can withdraw the legislation if he wants to before a decision has been.

Another issue that I hadn't thought of before is whether the President should have multiple redrafts of legislation.  Just FYI.

And there is no assurance in my mind that I would support my proposal.  I'm just merely presenting an alternative that I might support for your perusal.  Clear? 

[Sam Spade]

Bumping for input.

[PBrunsel]

I stand with Senator Al when it comes to this amendment. I simply see no reason to increase the power of the Line Item Veto. When I was president I used it once, and that was it since I feel it is only needed for emergencies. I see no reason to expand an emergency power.

[Јas]

I simply see no reason to increase the power of the Line Item Veto. When I was president I used it once, and that was it since I feel it is only needed for emergencies. I see no reason to expand an emergency power.

The line item veto is effectively unusable today, given that few bills deal with expenditure these days.

This amendment gets rid of the LIV as we know it and transforms it into a power for the president to respond to the Senate with a much more nuanced view on the legislation it is working on.

As I say, the amendment seeks to increase the standing of the President in the legislative process. The Wixted/Jas ticket campaigned primarily on the status of the Presidency and I believe the people responded positively to that idea - I would hope that the Senate would eventually let the people decide on this issue.

[Sam Spade]

Because of the three absences next week, I suspect that we will have to put off a vote until other Senators come back.  Considering there are already three pretty solid votes against this in present form, I suspect this bill's chances are not that great of passing, but I could be wrong. 

I will put together my amendment next week (b/c I will have the time) to see some type of coalition can be put together to give this bill a chance.  I do want to let the administration know once again that I'm not even sure I would support my proposal, but it needs to be put out there.

[Ebowed]

A veto, of any sort, is not constructive.

I will have to disagree on this point.  Several Presidents, including myself, have been able to use the veto constructively to change the minds of Senators and end bad ideas from becoming law.  That probably wouldn't be the case in a polarized Senate such as this, but I believe under the right circumstances we can see a constructive veto.

[King]

If we don't give the President good veto power, then we might as well just abolish the executive branch, expand the Senate and elect one of them Prime Minister or something.

[Sam Spade]

I'll finish the amendment here soon also.

[Sam Spade]

I propose an amendment to strike the entire clause of this text and replace it with the following language:

Article I, Section 3, Clause 4 of the Constitution shall be amended to read as follows:

Whensoever the Senate shall pass a bill and present it to the President, he shall have the option to redraft the bill and return it to the Senate in redrafted form. The President shall have this option once with each particular bill presented to him. The original sponsor of the bill, as so defined in Senate rules, shall either file a motion to approve the President’s redraft by a simple majority vote, and return it to the President for his signature or veto, or withdraw the bill from the Senate.

If the Senate approves the President's redraft by a simple majority vote, the redrafted bill shall be returned to the President for his signature or veto.  If the Senate rejects the President's redraft, the original sponsor shall either file a motion to send the original draft of the bill back to the President for his signature or veto, or shall direct the Senate to resume debate on the bill as presented to the President.


Unless this passes, I shall be voting Nay.  If this does pass, I am still undecided.

[Јas]

The amendment is acceptable to me.

[Sam Spade]

We are now voting on the following amendment:

I propose an amendment to strike the entire clause of this text and replace it with the following language:

Article I, Section 3, Clause 4 of the Constitution shall be amended to read as follows:

Whensoever the Senate shall pass a bill and present it to the President, he shall have the option to redraft the bill and return it to the Senate in redrafted form. The President shall have this option once with each particular bill presented to him. The original sponsor of the bill, as so defined in Senate rules, shall either file a motion to approve the President’s redraft by a simple majority vote, and return it to the President for his signature or veto, or withdraw the bill from the Senate.

If the Senate approves the President's redraft by a simple majority vote, the redrafted bill shall be returned to the President for his signature or veto.  If the Senate rejects the President's redraft, the original sponsor shall either file a motion to send the original draft of the bill back to the President for his signature or veto, or shall direct the Senate to resume debate on the bill as presented to the President.

Please vote Aye, Nay or Abstain.


Aye.

[DownWithTheLeft]

Aye

[Keystone Phil]

Aye

[Ebowed]

Aye

[Brandon H]

Aye