Concordia res Parvae Crescunt
The Senate is moving toward its first vote in more than a decade on the line-item veto, and it’s remarkable how much has changed – particularly the positions of many of the major players.
At issue is a watered-down GOP measure that would allow a president to scrutinize spending bills he signs into law for questionable items and then submit cuts, or rescissions, to Congress for a vote.
Remember, the reason there hasn’t been a vote on this in “more than a decade” is because the Supreme Court struck down the previous line-item veto from Congress as unconstitutional. In a rare decision that opposed Congress and the expansion of government power, the Court rules that the Constitution did not give Congress the power to hand such authority to the President.
Since only Constitutional Amendments, and not time, can change the enumerated powers of the Constitution…this remains true today.
As Justice John Paul Stevens said in 1996:
“the procedures authorized by the line-item veto act are not authorized by the Constitution.”
And, as we state repeatedly here, the “powers not delegated….are reserved to the States, respectively, or to the People.”
The only way that Congress can give that power to the President is through the passing of a Constitutional Amendment. In his 1996 majority opinion, Stevens concurred:
“If there is to be a new procedure in which the president will play a different role in determining the text of what may become a law, such change must come not by legislation but through the amendment procedures set forth in Article V of the Constitution.”
Proponents of the constitutional change say that this will give the president a “valuable tool” for eliminating waste in the federal budget. But, there’s already a clear and simple veto procedure in the Constitution.
The problem we face isn’t the lack of power for the president to veto line-by-line.
The problem we face is that we have a Congress that passes 100+ page legislation without ever reading it. The problem we face is that our Presidents refuse to veto bills that have “riders” or “lines” in them that are bad for the nation. The problem we face is that we have a government that repeatedly legislates away our rights.
Giving even more power to an already overly-powerful executive branch will do nothing to secure our liberty.
Taking away a great deal of that power will.
If you enjoyed this post:
Click Here to Get the Free Tenth Amendment Center Newsletter,
It's high time we have a line item veto. Senators add all kinds of special amendments to legislation at the last minute to important amendments. It costs money to all Americans to take care of the special interests of Senators.
Without a line item veto then there a President is obligated to support bad legislation if inside a good bill.
no, because they should veto any bill that's unconstitutional.
Well, unless you subscribe to the George Bush-theory of government - where the executive should have power to pick and choose.
So, it's okay if say, randomly in a proposed Bill that maybe alters healthcare to your wishes there is one line that says,
"And Congressman John gets a free hot tub,"
Then you have to veto the whole bill just so he doesn't get that?
Basically, there can be little bits of random crap that are just useless. So, rather than veto the whole bill it speeds up the process and gets laws/bills through faster.
I don't really mean that anyone would put in that someone gets a hot tub, but ridiculous items like that are put into these 100+ page bills, so it's much quicker to be able to just get rid of the random nonsense that doesn't really pertain to the Bill at all.
Yup - the executive either needs to veto the entire bill or sign the entire bill. The Constitution doesn't authorize the executive to pick and choose.
If you believe this is an important thing - to keep government moving fast and getting a lot of bills through - then the proper way would be to propose a constitutional amendment authorizing such power.
Personally, I'd prefer government to slow down. Most of what they do is unconstitutional anyway, so anything that can slow the flow of more unconstitutional laws is a good thing.
Your quotes from Stevens are from the year 1998, because that was the case of Clinton v. City of New York which took place in 1998, teo years after the line-item veto act was passed.
Tenther Radio!
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
Subscribe to entries
Subscribe to comments
All content © 2012 by Tenth Amendment Center
[...] As laid out in the Constitution, the President has the ability to nullify an act of Congress, and that is by use of the veto. But, rather than follow the law and veto bills which he feels are repugnant to the Constitution, President Bush is using these signing statements as a way to nullify the bill, in practice, as it “relates to the executive branch.†In reality, signing statements used in this matter are nothing more than a line-item veto – a presidential decree – the use of which is quite contrary to the Constitution and the separation of powers. [...]
[...] In reality, signing statements used in this matter are nothing more than a line-item veto – a presidential decree – the use of which is quite contrary to the Constitution and the separation of powers. [...]