Bush wants to bring back the line-item veto

[Rob E Dangerously 0]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...ine_item_veto_2

 

Bush Wants Line-Item Veto to Be Revived

 

Wed Nov 10,10:18 AM ET  White House - AP

 

By JIM ABRAMS, Associated Press Writer

 

WASHINGTON - Six years after the Supreme Court took away the president's ability to veto specific parts of legislation, President Bush is asking Congress to bring back the line-item veto to let him make precision strikes against projects and tax provisions he doesn't like.

 

At a news conference after his re-election, Bush said he wanted a line-item veto that "passed constitutional muster," explaining it would help him work with lawmakers "to make sure that we're able to maintain budget discipline."

 

Presidents have been saying similar words since the first line-item veto proposal was introduced in the 1870s. It wasn't until 1996, when the new Republican majority in the House made the tool part of its "Contract With America," that Congress responded.

 

President Clinton happily signed the legislation, and in 1997 he used his new power 82 times to negate specific projects in larger spending bills. Congress overrode his veto 38 times, although it still resulted in savings of almost $2 billion.

 

Clinton singled out for elimination programs that, detractors said, benefited a single tour boat operator in Alaska, or dredged a Mississippi lake that primarily served yachts and pleasure boats.

 

Two of the losers, New York City and Idaho potato growers, went to court, however, and in 1997 the Supreme Court ruled on a 6-3 vote that the law gave the president unconstitutional unilateral power to change laws enacted by Congress.

 

The nation returned to what is now current law: The president signs or vetoes spending or tax bills in their entirety; he cannot eliminate items within the bills.

 

The line-item veto helps restrain excessive spending, said Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, but "failure of political will does not justify unconstitutional remedies."

 

Opponents said the law seriously eroded Congress' power over the purse and tilted the Constitution's system of checks and balances dangerously in favor of the executive branch.

 

"It is a malformed monstrosity, born out of wedlock," thundered Sen. Robert Byrd (news, bio, voting record) of West Virginia, the senior Democrat on the Senate Appropriations Committee and a staunch defender of the rights of the legislative branch.

 

With the court ruling and the return of budget surpluses during Clinton's presidency, the line-item issue faded away. As deficits reappeared and mounted to record levels under Bush, the issue also reappeared.

 

The administration has put language in its annual budget proposals that encourage another look at the line-item veto. White House Budget Director Josh Bolten told the Senate Budget Committee this year that the administration hopes to work with Congress to draft legislation that would stand up to constitutional scrutiny.

 

"We hope the president has the political courage to follow through on this," said David Williams, spokesman for Citizens Against Government Waste, a leading advocate of the line-item veto as a means to rein in government spending. "This could be one of his legacies."

 

Williams said a new proposal could be written in a manner that would avoid the constitutional challenge that sank the last measure. Others say the Constitution must be amended to make the line-item veto legal.

 

A constitutional amendment has been proposed by Sen. Elizabeth Dole (news - web sites), R-N.C., whose husband, former Senate Majority Leader Bob Dole, R-Kan., was a chief sponsor of the 1996 measure with Sen. John McCain (news, bio, voting record), R-Ariz.

 

Rep. Bob Andrews, D-N.J., who has a similar constitutional amendment proposal in the House, said he thought Bush's statement could give impetus to legislative action.

 

It's not a Republican versus Democratic issue, Andrews said. It's "appropriations people against the rest of us. They jealously guard their ability to put projects in bills. Some are justifiable, some aren't."

 

David Skaggs, a former Democratic congressman from Colorado, led the opposition in the House to the 1996 bill. He said it would be foolhardy now for Congress to pass legislation that would produce a "huge shift in power to the presidency" and open possibilities of abuse. He saw the possibility that lawmakers, to protect a project in their district, could be pressured to support a White House policy they otherwise opposed.

 

"The answer is self-discipline on the part of Congress, not derogating its central power," said Skaggs, now head of the Center for Democracy and Citizenship at the Council for Excellence in Government.

 

A constitutional amendment is the only way to go for this, but good luck getting it ratified.

[Guest MikeSC]

Yup, the Dems will fight it. Gotta keep the pork and blame Bush for all of the spending.

 

Heck, the GOP had no problem giving it to Clinton.

-=Mike

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

The Supreme Court will just shoot it down...

[Guest MikeSC]

The Supreme Court will just shoot it down...

Which is bizarre:

 

Limiting political speech is legal (McConnell v FEC). But the line item veto is not?

-=Mike

[bob_barron 0]

Clinton v. The City of New York from 1998 made it illegal. I read that in my World Almanac

[Guest MikeSC]

Clinton v. The City of New York from 1998 made it illegal. I read that in my World Almanac

And it makes no sense. If McCain/Feingold is constitutional --- how the heck can this not be?

-=Mike

[bob_barron 0]

Clinton v. City of New York

524 U.S. 417 (1998)

Docket Number: 97-1374

Abstract

 

 

 

Argued:

April 27, 1998

 

Decided:

June 25, 1998

 

 

Subjects: Miscellaneous: Miscellaneous

 

 

 

Facts of the Case

This case consolidates two separate challenges to the constitutionality of two cancellations, made by President William J. Clinton, under the Line Item Veto Act ("Act"). In the first, the City of New York, two hospital associations, a hospital, and two health care unions, challenged the President's cancellation of a provision in the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 which relinquished the Federal Government's ability to recoup nearly $2.6 billion in taxes levied against Medicaid providers by the State of New York. In the second, the Snake River farmer's cooperative and one of its individual members challenged the President's cancellation of a provision of the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997. The provision permitted some food refiners and processors to defer recognition of their capital gains in exchange for selling their stock to eligible farmers' cooperatives. After a district court held the Act unconstitutional, the Supreme Court granted certiorari on expedited appeal.

 

 

Question Presented

Did the President's ability to selectively cancel individual portions of bills, under the Line Item Veto Act, violate the Presentment Clause of Article I?

 

 

Conclusion

Yes. In a 6-to-3 decision the Court first established that both the City of New York, and its affiliates, and the farmers' cooperative suffered sufficiently immediate and concrete injuries to sustain their standing to challenge the President's actions. The Court then explained that under the Presentment Clause, legislation that passes both Houses of Congress must either be entirely approved (i.e. signed) or rejected (i.e. vetoed) by the President. The Court held that by canceling only selected portions of the bills at issue, under authority granted him by the Act, the President in effect "amended" the laws before him. Such discretion, the Court concluded, violated the "finely wrought" legislative procedures of Article I as envisioned by the Framers.

[Guest MikeSC]

Using that logic, vetoes of entire bills wouldn't be Constitutional, either.

-=Mike

[bob_barron 0]

I got that from http://www.oyez.org/oyez/resource/case/1106/ btw.

[Rob E Dangerously 0]

Yeah.. if they pass another bill, it'll be shot down. And rightly so.

 

the Dems will fight it

 

Considering that Dems like Kerry, Ted Kennedy, Tom Daschle (Senate Minority leader), Wendell Ford (then-Senate minority whip), Paul Wellstone, Diane Feinstein and others in the Senate, along with 71 Democrats in the House, voted for the Line-Item Veto.. i'm sure it'll be a brawl.

 

and on checking the house vote, switch another vote in favor for the wagering, as Schumer voted for the LIV in the House.

 

It should be obvious why Byrd opposes a line-item veto. But, all pork comes from Democrats.

 

http://www.cagw.org/site/PageServer?pagena...nth_hallofshame

[Guest Loss]

Dude, he SWORE that he wouldn't bring back the dra...

 

Oh, nevermind.

 

(Interesting how those cut-off titles on the board index can make you think the worst.)

[Guest MikeSC]

Yeah.. if they pass another bill, it'll be shot down. And rightly so.

 

the Dems will fight it

 

Considering that Dems like Kerry, Ted Kennedy, Tom Daschle (Senate Minority leader), Wendell Ford (then-Senate minority whip), Paul Wellstone, Diane Feinstein and others in the Senate, along with 71 Democrats in the House, voted for the Line-Item Veto.. i'm sure it'll be a brawl.

 

and on checking the house vote, switch another vote in favor for the wagering, as Schumer voted for the LIV in the House.

 

It should be obvious why Byrd opposes a line-item veto. But, all pork comes from Democrats.

 

http://www.cagw.org/site/PageServer?pagena...nth_hallofshame

Rob, who has pushed for the LIV for years? Who has opposed it? When Reagan and Bush were in office --- why was it never passed? When Clinton first got in office, why wasn't it passed?

 

It took Republicans to do it.

 

Heck, the line-item veto is the ONLY smart thing the Confederates put in their Constitution (well, outside of basically copying the US Constitution verbatim)

-=Mike

[Rob E Dangerously 0]

Rob, who has pushed for the LIV for years? Who has opposed it? When Reagan and Bush were in office --- why was it never passed? When Clinton first got in office, why wasn't it passed?

 

It took Republicans to do it.

 

So the Democrats had a stranglehold over the US Senate from 1981 to 1987 (with such Democrats as Howard Baker and Mark Hatfield opposing this measure).. and they also controlled the Government from 1873 (or so) until 1995. Since the LIV was proposed back in the 1870s and never really considered until the mid-1980s.

 

So, to recap.. pork-barrel spending and stalling bills is something that only Democrats have done. Republicans are too busy feeding starving lepers to do that stuff.

 

I guess it's better to propose it now, than to wait until Robert Byrd died or retired.

 

The GOP will need just 12 votes in the Senate and about 55 or 56 votes in the House. It may not be that hard.

[Guest MikeSC]

Rob, who has pushed for the LIV for years? Who has opposed it? When Reagan and Bush were in office --- why was it never passed? When Clinton first got in office, why wasn't it passed?

 

It took Republicans to do it.

 

So the Democrats had a stranglehold over the US Senate from 1981 to 1987 (with such Democrats as Howard Baker and Mark Hatfield opposing this measure).. and they also controlled the Government from 1873 (or so) until 1995. Since the LIV was proposed back in the 1870s and never really considered until the mid-1980s.

 

So, to recap.. pork-barrel spending and stalling bills is something that only Democrats have done. Republicans are too busy feeding starving lepers to do that stuff.

 

I guess it's better to propose it now, than to wait until Robert Byrd died or retired.

 

The GOP will need just 12 votes in the Senate and about 55 or 56 votes in the House. It may not be that hard.

And I have little doubt that the Dems will fight it. I hope I'm wrong, but I doubt I will be.

-=Mike

[Rob E Dangerously 0]

Rob, who has pushed for the LIV for years? Who has opposed it? When Reagan and Bush were in office --- why was it never passed? When Clinton first got in office, why wasn't it passed?

 

It took Republicans to do it.

 

So the Democrats had a stranglehold over the US Senate from 1981 to 1987 (with such Democrats as Howard Baker and Mark Hatfield opposing this measure).. and they also controlled the Government from 1873 (or so) until 1995. Since the LIV was proposed back in the 1870s and never really considered until the mid-1980s.

 

So, to recap.. pork-barrel spending and stalling bills is something that only Democrats have done. Republicans are too busy feeding starving lepers to do that stuff.

 

I guess it's better to propose it now, than to wait until Robert Byrd died or retired.

 

The GOP will need just 12 votes in the Senate and about 55 or 56 votes in the House. It may not be that hard.

And I have little doubt that the Dems will fight it. I hope I'm wrong, but I doubt I will be.

-=Mike

I doubt that.

 

It'd only take 12 Senators to get 67 in the Senate.

 

10 current Democratic Senators voted for the law in 1996 (which passed 69-31).

 

The odds are good in the Senate. I'm not entirely sure about the house, since there's more ground to cover. But, i'm sure an amendment would pass the Congress

[godthedog 0]

The Court held that by canceling only selected portions of the bills at issue, under authority granted him by the Act, the President in effect "amended" the laws before him.

 

Using that logic, vetoes of entire bills wouldn't be Constitutional, either.

how so?

 

The Supreme Court will just shoot it down...

indeed they will.

[Guest Cerebus]

Clinton v. The City of New York from 1998 made it illegal. I read that in my World Almanac

And it makes no sense. If McCain/Feingold is constitutional --- how the heck can this not be?

-=Mike

C'mon Mike. What the fuck does McCain/Feingold have to do with line-item vetos? Hell, what do line-item vetos have to do with free speech?

 

That crazy thing called the Constitution is pretty clear:

 

Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States; If he approve 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. If after such Reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the Bill, it shall be sent, together with the Objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a Law.

 

Pretty clear if you ask me.

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

From this thread, it's clear that Mike has little grasp on Constitutional Law.

[Guest MikeSC]

From this thread, it's clear that Mike has little grasp on Constitutional Law.

No, just baffled as to what unconstitutional things the Supreme Court will permit.

-=Mike

[Guest Wildbomb 4:20]

Really? Then what do you consider unconstitutional, and I'll see if I can explain how it is legal under said Constitution and Supreme Court rulings.

 

--Ryan

...let's make this fun...

[Guest MikeSC]

Really? Then what do you consider unconstitutional, and I'll see if I can explain how it is legal under said Constitution and Supreme Court rulings.

 

--Ryan

...let's make this fun...

The entire McCain/Feingold bill.

-=Mike

[Guest Wildbomb 4:20]

I will have a fully entirely coherent post in the morning for ya, Mike. Right now, I'm far too wasted to say anything worthwhile, but I will be able to explain McCain-Feingold for you in Constitutional context for you sometime tomorrow.

 

--Ryan

[Guest Wildbomb 4:20]

All right, now I've sobered up, gone through, done my research, and now it's time for all of McCain-Feingold to be explained Constitutionally.

 

Article I, Section 8 lists the powers of Congress. Under it, you'll find things like the power to borrow money, tax, create a Navy, declare War, etc.

 

Article I, Section 8, Clause 14: To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;...

 

Article I, Section 8, Clause 18: To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

 

This last one is the important one. It's the necessary and proper clause of the Constitution. Under the necessary and proper clause, the powers of Congress are not just those listed in the U.S. Constitution. Any power that will help the Congress carry out the foregoing listed powers are therefore Constitutional, as shown by the ruling of McCulloch v. Maryland. If you need an explanation of this case, I'd be happy to show it to you.

 

Therefore, using this Constitutional logic, Congress passed law regulating government election. Because campaign contributions are part of the election of governmental officials, and because Congress has the express power of Clause 14 to regulate the government and the implied power of Clause 18 to carry out ANY law necessary to carry out the foregoing powers, it is Constitutional.

 

Fun logic, isn't it? But that's the way it works.

 

--Ryan

...thinking of actually changing majors...

[TheBigSwigg 0]

Hey WildBomb, explain how the Patriot Act is constitutional. That should be fun.

[Guest MikeSC]

It, still, seems quite in opposition to the 1st Amendment. Money IS speech in the political arena and limiting speech, in particular political speech, seems completely unconstitutional (I've never comprehended the legitimacy of donation limits, either). THAT is my big stumbling block. The bill dictates WHO can advocate a candidate and WHEN they can do it. What I've read of the McConnell v FEC decision, permitting restrictions on free speech to avoid the "appearance" of undue influence seems unbelievably shaky.

-=Mike

[Guest MikeSC]

Hey WildBomb, explain how the Patriot Act is constitutional. That should be fun.

Keep in mind that the "controversial" aspects (such as allowing the gov't to investigate library records and the like) have been in effect for mafia bosses for a long while now.

-=Mike

...Also keep in mind that there is no Constitutional right to privacy, as the gov't has the power to violate it at will (most notably, on 4/15 every year for most people)...

[Guest Wildbomb 4:20]

You forgot Schenk v. United States, which is where the Supreme Court can uphold McCain-Feingold. The ruling found that there are NO absolute First Amendment rights. Ever hear of clear and present danger? That's where this came from. The ruling found that political speech can be controlled and considered unconstitutional. This particular ruling was political speech against the government in a time of war, but that's a moot point. It establishes that there are no absolute First Amendment rights. You have First Amendment liberties, which is a long battle within itself.

 

I'll go into the Patriot Act and it's validity in the Constitution sometime later, after I've done some research.

 

--Ryan

[Guest MikeSC]

You forgot Schenk v. United States, which is where the Supreme Court can uphold McCain-Feingold. The ruling found that there are NO absolute First Amendment rights. Ever hear of clear and present danger? That's where this came from. The ruling found that political speech can be controlled and considered unconstitutional. This particular ruling was political speech against the government in a time of war, but that's a moot point. It establishes that there are no absolute First Amendment rights. You have First Amendment liberties, which is a long battle within itself.

 

I'll go into the Patriot Act and it's validity in the Constitution sometime later, after I've done some research.

 

--Ryan

I do understand that --- but the justification used for McConnell v FEC was baffling. Permitting it to avoid the "appearance" of undue influence just makes no sense.

-=Mike

[Guest Wildbomb 4:20]

To respond, yes, the logic in the decision for McConnell v FEC is a bit baffling. Life goes on. Hope though that my answer for McCain-Feingold was worthwhile in terms of its Constitutionality.

 

Now, as for the Patriot Act. Once again, you need to look at the explicit and implied powers of Congress. The necessary and proper clause found in Article I, Section 8, Clause 18 of the Constitution permits Congress to pass laws that are "necessary and proper" for it to carry out the explicit powers listed in Clauses 1-17 and all other powers not expressly delegated to the states. Therefore, any law that helps it carry out powers delegated in Clauses 1-17 are consitutional.

 

Now, we need to find what part of the Constitution where it would be determined Congress can draw the power from to pass the Patriot Act. Because there is nothing therefore listed, one would think it is unconstitutional. HOWEVER, because the terms of national defense are indeed listed in Clause 11 (the power to declare war), then Congress has the power to make law on national defense.

 

Mike has it somewhat right when he says there is no Constitutional right to privacy. Amendments 4-8 deal with police laws. Fun part, though: they only apply to the ahem, police of the states, technically. That's due to Amendment 14's both Minimum Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses. Therefore, the federal forms of investigation don't technically answer to the Constitution. Funny how that works out.

 

That's the basics of it...I'll go more into it if people want to.

 

--Ryan

...more political science fun...