<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Tenth Amendment Center &#187; executive</title>
	<atom:link href="http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/tag/executive/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://tenthamendmentcenter.com</link>
	<description>Concordia res Parvae Crescunt</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 24 May 2012 01:25:39 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
			<item>
		<title>Line-Item Veto: An unconstitutional abrogation</title>
		<link>http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2007/01/23/line-item-veto-an-unconstitutional-abrogation/</link>
		<comments>http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2007/01/23/line-item-veto-an-unconstitutional-abrogation/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 24 Jan 2007 01:32:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Tenth Amendment</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Enumerated Powers]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[10th Amendment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[article-V]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Congress]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[constitutional-amendments]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[executive]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Executive Power]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Line-Item Veto]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[power]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[supreme-court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[tenth-amendment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[veto]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2007/01/23/line-item-veto-an-unconstitutional-abrogation/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Associated Press Reports: The Senate is moving toward its first vote in more than a decade on the line-item veto, and it&#8217;s remarkable how much has changed â€“ 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 [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/politics/20070122-1422-line-itemveto.html" target="_blank">The Associated Press Reports</a>:</p>
<blockquote><p><em>The Senate is moving toward its first vote in more than a decade on the  line-item veto, and it&#8217;s remarkable how much has changed â€“ particularly the  positions of many of the major players. </em></p></blockquote>
<blockquote><p><em>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. </em></p></blockquote>
<p>Remember, the reason there hasn&#8217;t been a vote on this in &#8220;more than a decade&#8221; 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.</p>
<p>Since only Constitutional Amendments, and not time, can change the enumerated powers of the Constitution&#8230;this remains true today.</p>
<p>As Justice John Paul Stevens said in 1996:</p>
<blockquote><p><em>&#8220;the procedures authorized by the line-item veto act are not authorized by the Constitution.&#8221; </em></p></blockquote>
<p>And, as we state repeatedly here, the &#8220;powers not delegated&#8230;.are reserved to the States, respectively, or to the People.&#8221;</p>
<p>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:</p>
<blockquote><p><em>&#8220;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.&#8221; </em></p></blockquote>
<div style="padding-right: 5px; padding-top: 10px; float: left"><!--adsense--></div>
<p>Proponents of the constitutional change say that this will give the president a &#8220;valuable tool&#8221; for eliminating waste in the federal budget.   But, there&#8217;s already a clear and simple veto procedure in the Constitution.</p>
<p>The problem we face isn&#8217;t the lack of power for the president to veto line-by-line.</p>
<p>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 &#8220;riders&#8221; or &#8220;lines&#8221; in them that are bad for the nation.  The problem we face is that we have a government that repeatedly legislates away our rights.</p>
<p>Giving even more power to an already overly-powerful executive branch will do nothing to secure our liberty.</p>
<p>Taking away a great deal of that power will.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2007/01/23/line-item-veto-an-unconstitutional-abrogation/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>8</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

