The one element of the Confederate Constitution that is generally praised by historians was its provision of the line-item veto, a power that our progressive POTUS now craves:
President Obama, in his latest effort to signal fiscal responsibility against the rising debt, plans this month to ask Congress to give him and future presidents greater power to try to delete individual items from spending bills.
In doing so, Mr. Obama will join a long line of his predecessors who have sought either line-item veto power or, after the Supreme Court in 1998 ruled such a veto unconstitutional, some other rescission authority that passes muster. Congress once again is unlikely to be receptive, though growing antidebt sentiment could give the proposal life. . . .
Of course, the damned Yankees at the New York Times would never acknowledge the historical precedent. But add the president’s advocacy of the line-item veto to his Marlboro habit on the (very short) list of Things I Like About Obama.
Stacy,
I’m not actually so sure I’m a fan of the LIV. It gets at the whole Constitutional Separation of Powers, a chastity belt acquiring too many notches these days.
Stacy,
I’m not actually so sure I’m a fan of the LIV. It gets at the whole Constitutional Separation of Powers, a chastity belt acquiring too many notches these days.
Smitty, aren’t you going to admire my restraint? I resisted the temptation to end this post, “Mr. President, I knew Jeff Davis. Jeff Davis was a friend of mine. And you, sir . . .”
Smitty, aren’t you going to admire my restraint? I resisted the temptation to end this post, “Mr. President, I knew Jeff Davis. Jeff Davis was a friend of mine. And you, sir . . .”
The Line Item Veto is extremely dangerous, and should never be given to the President. Congress controls the purse, not the President. With the Line Item Veto, the President will have ridiculous amounts of power that he can wield to override the decisions of the elected representatives of the people whenever he feels like. He will, in essence, become a dictator. No one man should have that power. Ever.
The Line Item Veto is extremely dangerous, and should never be given to the President. Congress controls the purse, not the President. With the Line Item Veto, the President will have ridiculous amounts of power that he can wield to override the decisions of the elected representatives of the people whenever he feels like. He will, in essence, become a dictator. No one man should have that power. Ever.
Yeah. He might even start taking over banks and car companies, nationalizing the health-care system and stuff like that . . .
Yeah. He might even start taking over banks and car companies, nationalizing the health-care system and stuff like that . . .
Support by executives for the line item veto seems to peak when the opposing party controls Congress. This seems to be a blatant admission of pending electoral defeat on the part of our current executive. He might as well come out and say “I think I’m going to lose both houses of Congress this November.”
Support by executives for the line item veto seems to peak when the opposing party controls Congress. This seems to be a blatant admission of pending electoral defeat on the part of our current executive. He might as well come out and say “I think I’m going to lose both houses of Congress this November.”
The LIV could, at least in theory, eliminate all pork and earmarks from spending. The practical reasoning supposes that it takes 2/3 of both House and Senate to overturn a veto, and since the goodies are often only included to win a necessary vote for simple majority, they could not survive.
However, the legislative value of a pork project would be diminished once the LIV practice began stripping them.
It is difficult to imagine a form LIV could take which would pass Constitutional muster, though. It always involves the Executive changing the legislation which passed the Congress.
Besides, not all Presidents would be wise and judicious in its use. Some with a partisan agenda and vendetta to push could use it to reward allies and punish foes in the legislature. “Hope and change,” indeed . . .
The LIV could, at least in theory, eliminate all pork and earmarks from spending. The practical reasoning supposes that it takes 2/3 of both House and Senate to overturn a veto, and since the goodies are often only included to win a necessary vote for simple majority, they could not survive.
However, the legislative value of a pork project would be diminished once the LIV practice began stripping them.
It is difficult to imagine a form LIV could take which would pass Constitutional muster, though. It always involves the Executive changing the legislation which passed the Congress.
Besides, not all Presidents would be wise and judicious in its use. Some with a partisan agenda and vendetta to push could use it to reward allies and punish foes in the legislature. “Hope and change,” indeed . . .
[…] Barack Obama: Neo-Confederate? […]
As long as Congress can override it, I don’t see a problem. It might help overcome the noxious practice of burying dozens of unrelated clauses in one bill along with something that must pass.
As long as Congress can override it, I don’t see a problem. It might help overcome the noxious practice of burying dozens of unrelated clauses in one bill along with something that must pass.