Lawmakers Prepare New Line-Item Veto Bill for Obama to 'Test Drive'

[trickblue]

Link

Lawmakers Prepare New Line-Item Veto Bill for Obama to 'Test Drive'

Three lawmakers are reintroducing legislation giving the president line-item veto authority -- more than a decade after the Supreme Court struck down the procedure as unconstitutional.

By Mosheh Oinounou

A bipartisan group is giving the line-item veto another go at it, albeit with some key tweaks, more than a decade after the Supreme Court struck down the procedure as unconstitutional.

Sens. Russ Feingold, D-Wis., and John McCain, R-Ariz., and Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis., on Wednesday will announce the introduction of a Line-Item Veto Act, which would enable the president to strike individual items like earmarks from a spending bill before signing it.

The White House has signaled that it is open to the idea. Asked about being given that authority, spokesman Robert Gibbs told reporters last week: "Well, I can assure you he'd love to take that for a test drive."

A Feingold spokesman noted that this bill is different than the law -- passed in 1996 but ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in 1998 -- because it would require Congress to approve the president's vetoed package protecting Congress' constitutional authority. A simple majority in the House and Senate would be needed.

"We are proposing a line-item veto that takes a balanced approach, giving the president power to send earmarks back to Congress, and requires Congress to vote, under fast-track procedures, on whether or not those earmarks should be included in the final bill," Feingold and Ryan wrote in an op-ed in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel Monday. "To guard against gridlock in Congress, the earmarks would be packaged together, rather than being treated separately."

The lawmakers say their proposal would not give the president authority to rewrite major portions of entitlement legislation and reduces the chance of political gamesmanship by preventing the president from repackaging eliminated items in a different form.

"He gets one shot for each provision he wants to cancel, and he has to act within 30 days," they wrote.

[Doomsday101]

I hope we can get some form of Line Item veto in the hands of the President

[trickblue]

I do as well...

Congress is largely responsible for pork and have held many a president hostage with pork added onto something the president wants...

Hopefully it goes through this time...

[Doomsday101]

Originally Posted by trickblue

I do as well...

Congress is largely responsible for pork and have held many a president hostage with pork added onto something the president wants...

Hopefully it goes through this time...

I agree. As McCain pointed out yesterday it was both republicans with 40% of the pork and Democrats with 60%. McCain called out both sided of this. I have been calling for a line item veto in some form for the President for a long time.

[trickblue]

Originally Posted by Doomsday101

I agree. As McCain pointed out yesterday it was both republicans with 40% of the pork and Democrats with 60%. McCain called out both sided of this. I have been calling for a line item veto in some form for the President for a long time.

Well you also have to look at the fact that some of this pork is being hung on members of congress that retired or were not re-elected... I find that strange...

One republican, can't remember where I read it, asked that his project be taken off as he was no longer in congress...

[Doomsday101]

Originally Posted by trickblue

Well you also have to look at the fact that some of this pork is being hung on members of congress that retired or were not re-elected... I find that strange...

One republican, can't remember where I read it, asked that his project be taken off as he was no longer in congress...

If you run across that article please post it. As far as pork projects go I have been against them for a very long time. If you have a bill funding education then only things pertaining to education need to be in that bill not a whole host of projects going to senators home districts. If an item can’t stand on its own merits then chances are it does not need to be passed to begin with and hiding it into some other bill is like stealing from the tax payers. I don’t accuse one side and give a free pass to the other side both parties do it and in my view it has to end.

[sacase]

At first I was for this, but when I thought about it I was not.

Here is how it can easily be abused. Dems propose bill, republicans propose amendments to it to make it more ok by their standards and add in a few things to counter what the dems are doing. Everyone agrees. Bill goes forward, president line item vetoes the repub parts out. goes back to congress and only a simple majority is needed for approval and of course is approved by the dems with what they really wanted done.

Basically, it allows one side to get rid of what the other is doing. Funny how this always comes up when the dems are in power. To much abuse potential for whatever side is in power. Goes against the spirit of the constitution.

If you really want "change" get rid of earmarks and make them have their own bill to stand on and be voted. Quit trying to circumvent the constitution.

[Doomsday101]

Originally Posted by sacase

At first I was for this, but when I thought about it I was not.

Here is how it can easily be abused. Dems propose bill, republicans propose amendments to it to make it more ok by their standards and add in a few things to counter what the dems are doing. Everyone agrees. Bill goes forward, president line item vetoes the repub parts out. goes back to congress and only a simple majority is needed for approval and of course is approved by the dems with what they really wanted done.

Basically, it allows one side to get rid of what the other is doing. Funny how this always comes up when the dems are in power. To much abuse potential for whatever side is in power. Goes against the spirit of the constitution.

If you really want "change" get rid of earmarks and make them have their own bill to stand on and be voted. Quit trying to circumvent the constitution.

Republicans want it as well. All this would do is allow the president the opportunity to take these things out then send it back to the house and senate for a vote.

[sacase]

I don't care what party wants it, to much potential for abuse and it circumvents the constitution.

[Kangaroo]

This was nixed by the supreme court once when Bill Clinton tried it if I remember correctly

[Heisenberg]

Originally Posted by sacase

I don't care what party wants it, to much potential for abuse and it circumvents the constitution.

Same here. I hate the pork spending as much as the next guy, but I'm just not sure this is the way to go about it.

[Vintage]

It was ruled unconstitutional before.

Not really a surprise the RepubliCrats want to implement something unconstitutional.

[CowboyPrincess]

Originally Posted by sacase

I don't care what party wants it, to much potential for abuse and it circumvents the constitution.

How are they not circumventing the Constitution already? They are suppose to be representing us and doing OUR will and they aren't even listening to the people who in the majority were dead set against this stimulus. And them trying to turn us into a socialist nation is flying in the face of the Constitution as well.

[masomenos]

Originally Posted by CowboyPrincess

How are they not circumventing the Constitution already? They are suppose to be representing us and doing OUR will and they aren't even listening to the people who in the majority were dead set against this stimulus. And them trying to turn us into a socialist nation is flying in the face of the Constitution as well.

Our elected officials are not supposed to "do our will", they are supposed to represent our interests. If what the deem to be in our interest is out of line with what the people think, then they are not reelected. Our congressmen are not proxies.

[burmafrd]

I thought the Supreme Court was out of line- a veto is a veto and what is left is details which are NOT in the Constituition. This is same kind of over interpretation that led to Roe V Wade and the abuse of the First Amendment regarding religion by the Court. By the way the word veto is NOT in the constuition. Many state Governors have line item veto power so why not the President? If the VETO is against the constituition then it should be illegal for the states as well. I notice the Supreme Court has never mentioned THAT.