In government, the line-item veto is the power of an executive to nullify or "cancel" specific provisions of a bill, usually budget appropriations, without vetoing the entire legislative package. The line-item vetoes are usually subject to the possibility of legislative override as are traditional vetoes.This power is held by many state governors in the United States of America. All but seven US states have some form of line-item veto.
The President of the United States was briefly granted this power by the Line Item Veto Act of 1996, passed by Congress in order to control "pork barrel spending" that favors a particular region rather than the nation as a whole. The line-item veto was used 11 times to strike 82 items from the federal budget by President Bill Clinton.
However, U.S. District Court Judge Thomas F. Hogan decided on February 12, 1998, that unilateral amendment or repeal of only parts of statutes violated the U.S. Constitution. This ruling was subsequently affirmed on June 25, 1998, by a 6-3 decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case Clinton v. City of New York.
(this quick history lesson courtsey of Wikipedia...ugh, but who knew that the Line Item Veto exchange would be the highlight of last night's GOP Presidential Debate focussing on the economy?)
In a further sign of how intense the race for the GOP presidential nomination is becoming, the two Republican front-runners attacked one another today on issues near and dear to Republican primary voters — taxes and spending.
Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney and former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani sparred or spending and the constitutionality of the line-item veto -- a power to line-out spending provisions that many governors have, but the U.S. presidency lost as unconstitutional in 1998.
"I don't think there's any tool more important than the line-item veto," Romney said when asked to contrast his record on taxes and
spending with Giuliani's.The line-item veto allows executives to veto individual items in spending bills without killing the entire bill. Many states give their governors line-item veto power, but the president does not have it — a federal judge ruled in 1998 that the Line Item Veto Act, one of the items in the Contract With America, was unconstitutional.
Romney noted that as mayor in 1997, Giuliani filed a lawsuit to challenge the constitutionality of the line-item veto, saying it improperly shifted congressional powers of taxation and appropriations to the executive branch. Giuliani said at the time he was worried his city's residents might be deprived of millions in health-care funding. Good footage of the exchange is linked here: http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=3689633&page=1
President Bush, as all presidents on both sides of the aisle have, has pushed for a re-instatement of the line-item veto. In fact, as the political cartoon above suggests, it can be argued that he as used the power in practice if not theory.
What do you think? In our system of checks & balances, should the president have the power line out certain provisions of Congressional spending bills?
9 comments:
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=3689633&page=1
This is the link to the Romney_Guiliani exchange.
I think that the president should be allowed to use the line veto power because it not only saves time and money, but it shows which specific measures the president dislikes. Also, Congress does not have to waste time to create a whole new bill, like they did with spending bills for Iraq. They can simply amend the bill.
PS... why is the line veto unconstitutional?
The Line-Item Veto Act of 1996 allowed the President to "cancel" certain provisions of appropriations bills & disallowed use of funds from cancelled provisions for offsetting deficit spending in other areas.
In Clinton v. City of New York (1998) -- the case where Rudy boasted about beating Bill Clinton, the Supreme Court by a 6-3 decision affirmed a district court ruling by overturning the law.
Basically, the problem was that it allowed the President -- not Congress -- to unilaterally amend statutes by using line-item cancellations. (Remember who has the Power of the Purse and the Power to Make Laws)
In writing the majority decision, Justice John Paul Stevens said the President's actions must be "an expressed prohibition (and)...the bill must be approved or rejected by the president in its entirety."
This is a rare modern decision that has limited expanding presidential powers.
While Rudy boasted about beating Bill, though, he didn't mention that the statute was introduced and passed by a Republican controlled Congress.
Many states, like Romney's Mass., has the line-item veto provision in their state constitution. In another example of federalism, that's why he can be proud and constitutionally clean for having made 844 cross-outs.
Although I generally advocate a strong central authority, I do not especially like the line-item veto. If the president does not like certain portions of the bill, he can send it back to Congress explaining which amendments must be made. Congress can only rarely override a veto anyway. A line-item veto does put too much power into the hands of an individual.
I completely agree with Garett. The President should not be able to pass a bill that he changed certain measures of - it then simply becomes a bill of one individual rather than the elected representatives of the people in the excecutive branch. If the president does not like a bill he can veto it and propose ammendments to - its called compromise. I know it is less convenient but the current presidency already has too much power, more should not be given to it.
Presidents use the line item veto to eliminate pork from bills that reach his desk. I believe that the line item veto is a useful tool because it can help hold the line on government spending. Remember, the line item veto can only take away, it cannot give. The president can’t slip something into the bill without Congress knowing about it. Therefore, taxpayers should not fear it.
A president prepares and submits the budget to Congress. He/she should be able to have some power to limit spending so the budget isn’t exceeded.
i definitely think the president should not have this power. it gives him way too much influence and it could lead to a lot of bargaining between the president and congress--and that baragaining may not be the best for the nation.
i don't think he has the right to edit. that is part of the checks and balances. the president either likes the law or he doesn't--if he's given this power then in a few decades he just might be making laws himself.
Although just the idea of giving the President, or any one individual, such power didn't appeal to me at first, I have to agree with Sean. He made a good point. The power only lets the President takes away from the bill, not add to it. Since the main concern is pork barreling and government spending, taking away from expenditures might not be a bad idea since the national deficit according to the one worksheet we got today is 8.2 trillion and counting.
"The line-item veto allows executives to veto individual items in spending bills without killing the entire bill."
After all the complaining about congressional gridlock, this power is rather beneficial. It cuts away from the massive spending bills and saves much time. Congress can still continue to amend the bill. This is just another way for the executive branch to check the legislative branch.
Post a Comment