Comments on: Line-Item Veto: An unconstitutional abrogation

By: East Bay Ed

East Bay Ed — Tue, 19 Jan 2010 03:30:46 +0000

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.

By: MichaelBoldin

MichaelBoldin — Fri, 04 Dec 2009 05:58:29 +0000

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.

By: wat

wat — Fri, 04 Dec 2009 05:44:10 +0000

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.

By: Michael Boldin

Michael Boldin — Tue, 01 Sep 2009 15:57:14 +0000

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.

By: Jerome

Jerome — Tue, 01 Sep 2009 15:55:06 +0000

Without a line item veto then there a President is obligated to support bad legislation if inside a good bill.

By: Politics: 2008 HQ » Blog Archive » The Signing Statement Dictatorship

Politics: 2008 HQ » Blog Archive » The Signing Statement Dictatorship — Wed, 14 Feb 2007 02:49:24 +0000

[...] In reality, signing statements used in this matter are nothing more than a line-item veto â€“ a presidential decree â€“ the use of which is quite contrary to the Constitution and the separation of powers. [...]

By: The Signing Statement Dictatorship Â» Tenth Amendment Center

The Signing Statement Dictatorship Â» Tenth Amendment Center — Wed, 14 Feb 2007 02:16:54 +0000

[...] 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 â€œrelates to the executive branch.â€ In reality, signing statements used in this matter are nothing more than a line-item veto â€“ a presidential decree â€“ the use of which is quite contrary to the Constitution and the separation of powers. [...]

By: Claude Roberts

Claude Roberts — Sun, 11 Feb 2007 23:37:20 +0000

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.