Line-Item Veto [Viking Prince vs Justice and Mercy]

[Justice and Mercy]

The Line-Item Veto I propose in the US would be a power given to the President via Constitutional Amendment; the power itself being the President's option to take certain spending provisions of a bill and send them back to Congress to be voted on individually, each provision requiring two-thirds of each House to pass.

Because I don't know my opponents view on this issue I'll just state why I'm in favor of this and why I believe some of the more popular arguments against it aren't valid reasons to not have it.

The way Congress works now is a sort of give and take. "Look, I'll support your bill if your throw this little provision in there to build a new stadium in my state/new park in my district."

This means a number of things. First, it means the bill isn't passed on it's own merits but rather on what the people trying to push the bill through were willing to tack on there. Second, it means that enormous amounts of waste are being attached to each bill.

Giving the President this power would allow the President to say "Look, if you want this spending to go through you need to have everyone decide it's a good idea, and not pass it based on the merits of what it's attached to." Congress would either have a compliant President (in which case it doesn't matter if they have the Line-Item Veto or not) or a President who does veto those spending provisions, and they might stop wasting their time playing this little game they do now.

Some of the arguments that I've heard against it are as follows:

1) "It gives the President too much power."

Why? Because he's forcing Congress to pass everything on it's own merits?

All this does is reduce waste.

2) "Congress simply doesn't have enough time to deal with this."

Well, they could start doing their job and not wasting their time playing this silly little game.

3) "Those provisions are necessary."

If they're so necessary certainly they can be passed on their own merits, right?

4) "The President could abuse this power and simply veto those spending provisions of the opposing party."

True. It could be abused. But what would you rather have, the President vetoing the spending provisions of the opposing party (not that there aren't benefits to this) or Congress wasting our time and our money?

5) "The President could change the wording of the bills to..."

Relax, he would only be able to veto spending provisions, not change the wording of a bill nor veto other things Congress wastes their time on that doesn't cost money and doesn't matter, like declaring September 8th to be Left-Handed Jewish Irishman's Day. Yeah, they shouldn't be wasting their time with this but sending it back to Congress is just going to waste more time.


Not sure if Viking Prince actually agrees with any of the reasons other people have against it that I heard, so apologies if I just wasted your time with that.


Viking Prince, the stage is yours.

----

Link to Commentary Thread.

[Viking Prince]

The line item veto has been popular with nearly all political executives, governors, mayors, and even presidents.

There are many problems with such a simple concept however.

Our constitution has separated powers into branches of government. The legislature writes the bills and the executive is responsible for implementation.

My argument is simple -- Legislative actions are the province of the legistative branch and executive actions shall remain in the executive branch. The line item veto violates this seperation of functions.

The line item veto is simply allowing the executive to perform a legislative responsibility. The legislature is more of a direct link to the people and thus legislation flows up to the central government. The president, armed with a legislative power such as a line item veto is more of a top down approach to government.

Legislation is filled with compromise and adjusted through the fire of legislative debate. A line item veto will disrupt such compromises and the risk is that legislation that is need and desired cannot be passed. The whim of a single pen can cancel out the wishes of several strong minority interests that together with compromise can achieve a majority position.

I would also suggest a careful reading of a George Will column on this subject:


Line-Item Foolishnes, By George F. Will, Sunday, October 21, 2007; Page B07

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Mitt Romney is an intelligent man who sometimes seems eager to find bushel baskets under which to hide his light. Romney faults Rudy Giuliani for opposing the presidential line-item veto. But Giuliani doesn't, unfortunately. The facts -- not that they loom large in this skirmish -- are:

When in 1997 Bill Clinton used the line-item veto, with which Congress had just armed him, to cancel $200 million for New York state, Giuliani harried Clinton all the way to the Supreme Court. It agreed with Giuliani that the line-item veto was an unconstitutional violation of the "presentment" clause. Today, Giuliani says, in defense of what does not need defending (his defense of the Constitution), he favors amending the Constitution to give presidents such a veto, thereby substantially augmenting what should not be further augmented -- presidential power.


In 1996, when a Republican-controlled Congress tried by statute to give Clinton and subsequent presidents a line-item veto, Pat Moynihan's intervention in the Senate debate began: "I rise in the serene confidence that this measure is constitutionally doomed." He was vindicated because the Constitution says "every bill" passed by Congress shall be "presented" to the president, who shall sign "it" or return "it" with his objections. The antecedent of the pronoun is the bill, not bits of it.

Forty-three governors have, and most presidents have coveted, the power to have something other than an all-or-nothing choice when presented with appropriations bills. This did not matter in 1789, when the only appropriations bill passed by the First Congress could have been typed double-space on a single sheet of paper. But 199 years later, President Ronald Reagan displayed a 43-pound, 3,296-page bill as an argument for a line-item veto. Today's gargantuan government, its 10 thumbs into everything, routinely generates elephantine appropriations bills.

But were a president empowered to cancel provisions of legislation, what he would be doing would be indistinguishable from legislating. He would be making, rather than executing, laws, and the separation of powers would be violated.

Furthermore, when presidents truncated bills by removing items, they often would vitiate the will of Congress. Frequently, congressional majorities could not have been cobbled together for bills if they had not included some provisions that presidents later removed.

The line-item veto expresses liberalism's faith in top-down government and the watery Caesarism that has produced today's inflated presidency. Liberalism assumes that executive branch experts, free from parochial constituencies, know, as Congress does not, what is good for the nation "as a whole." This is contrary to the public philosophy of James Madison's "extensive" republic with its many regions and myriad interests.

If Romney thinks a line-item veto would be a major force for federal frugality, he is mistaken. Gov. Reagan used his line-item veto to trim, on average, only about 2 percent from California's budgets. And much larger proportions of state budgets than of the federal budget are susceptible to such vetoes. Sixty-one percent of the federal budget goes to entitlements and to interest payments on government borrowing, neither of which can be vetoed. An additional 21 percent goes to defense and homeland security. Realistically, the line-item veto probably would be pertinent to less than 20 percent of the budget.

And the line-item veto might result in increased spending. Legislators would have even less conscience about packing the budget with pork, because they could get credit for putting in what presidents would be responsible for taking out. Presidents, however, might use the pork for bargaining, saying to individual legislators: If you support me on this and that, I will not veto the bike path you named for your Aunt Emma.

After a century of the growth of presidential power and after eight years of especially aggressive assertions of presidential prerogatives, it would be unseemly to intensify this tendency with a line-item veto. Conservatives used to be the designated worriers about the evolution of the presidency into the engine of grandiose government. They should visit the Rotunda for the Charters of Freedom in the National Archives building on Constitution Avenue. There the Constitution is displayed under four large glass plates. Almost half of the glass is required to cover just Article One. That concerns the legislative branch, which is the government's "first branch" for a reason.

A polite assessment of Romney's -- and Giuliani's -- enthusiasm for a line-item veto would resemble a 19th-century scholar's assessment of a rival's translation of Plato: "The best translation of a Greek philosopher which has ever been executed by a person who understood neither philosophy nor Greek."

[Justice and Mercy]

There are many problems with such a simple concept however.

There are problems with any concept, the question is a choice of judgement, would it be better for the nation as a whole to have it or no?

Our constitution has separated powers into branches of government. The legislature writes the bills and the executive is responsible for implementation.

Then why not remove the veto power in it's entirety?

My argument is simple -- Legislative actions are the province of the legistative branch and executive actions shall remain in the executive branch. The line item veto violates this seperation of functions.

And so does the general veto power.

The line item veto is simply allowing the executive to perform a legislative responsibility. The legislature is more of a direct link to the people and thus legislation flows up to the central government. The president, armed with a legislative power such as a line item veto is more of a top down approach to government.

Why? Because it forces Congress to pass provisions on their own merits?

Is there ANYTHING wrong with this?

The whim of a single pen can cancel out the wishes of several strong minority interests that together with compromise can achieve a majority position.

In other words it allows people to pass something based on the merits of what it's attached to, rather than it's own merits.

If states are in need of earmarks that badly it's time we start raising state taxes, especially considering these earmarks aren't a Constitutional function of the Feds.

The states, on the other hand, are free to waste their money.

Realistically, the line-item veto probably would be pertinent to less than 20 percent of the budget.

Looking at the budget that sounds pretty substantial to me.

And the line-item veto might result in increased spending. Legislators would have even less conscience about packing the budget with pork, because they could get credit for putting in what presidents would be responsible for taking out.

Unsubstantiated. How often do governors do that? How often did Clinton do that?

On the other hand, how often do Congressman tack waste to bills?

Presidents, however, might use the pork for bargaining, saying to individual legislators: If you support me on this and that, I will not veto the bike path you named for your Aunt Emma.

Read above.

[Viking Prince]

There is a difference between a veto of an entire bill and a line item veto. As I have stated, the line item veto is essentially allowing the Executive Branch to write legislation. The surviving legislation is not what was intended by Congress. On the other hand a general veto does not change existing legislation. This is an important and essential difference.

Congress has a Constitutional mandated control over the federal purse strings. A line item veto can give the president power to threaten vetoes as a means of punishing political enemies and bullying them into supporting his position on other, unrelated issues. The 1996 act that was overturned by the Supreme Court is dead and the advocates are no longer pushing for a resurrection.

A line item veto can also create unfunded mandates by cutting specific appropriations but leave legislation in place requiring compliance by other government units (states, counties, cities, etc.) Such funding may indeed be a necessary compromise by legislators to get the required votes.

There is no need to grant the President more power over federal budget and tax policies. The President already has the authority to propose rescissions and regularly utilizes it. The President and his staff frequently use a Statement of Administration Policy (SAP) to communicate the Administration's stance on congressional budget legislation and to recommend specific program spending levels. Just recently, President Bush threatened to veto Congress' emergency supplemental spending bill if its costs exceeded the President's goal.

Similarly, Congress already has an established deliberative process to enact a budget. While there are varied proposals that might strengthen this process, H.R. 4890 is unlikely to achieve the legislation's main goal — reduced spending. It is clearly in the purview of Congress to make decisions on spending and tax policies. Congress should retain its own decision-making over such issues, including earmarks, discretionary spending, and entitlement programs.

Source

Pork Projects May Not Be Affected

Even with a line-item veto, Presidents are limited to vetoing items that actually appear in bills. Yet nearly all pork projects are not actually in legislation but in conference and committee reports and even in press releases. These instructions are not part of the bills and so are not legally binding. Still, the federal agencies that implement the law nearly always follow them. Proposals now before Congress would move earmarks from conference reports to the legislative text itself, providing the president with the opportunity to strike these projects with a veto or rescission.

But the President can take bold action now, without waiting for his line-item veto or for earmarks to migrate back to bills’ legislative text. President Bush could immediately eliminate the majority of pork projects with an Executive Order mandating that the Office of Management and Budget and all federal agencies implement only provisions that appear in actual legislative text, and not provisions in non-binding reports. Additionally, the President should veto any bill that contains express provisions for earmarks, regardless of the bill’s subject.

Source

This should finish my rebuttal of why I believe the general veto is not writing new legislation and why the line item veto does indeed allow the executive to write legislation.

Moving to another point now:

Another issue with a line item veto is at what majority will the Congress be able to override such line item vetoes. The constitution currently states:

Article 1 Section 7: All bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with amendments as on other Bills.

Every bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, before it become a law and be presented to the President of the United States; if he approves, he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the objections at large on their journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the bill, it shall be sent, together with the objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a law. But in all such cases the votes of both Houses shall be determined by yeas and nays, and the names of the persons voting for and against the bill shall be entered on the journal of each House respectively. If any bill shall not be returned by the President within ten days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the same shall be a law, in like manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their adjournment prevent its return, in which case it shall not be a law.

Every order, resolution, or vote to which the concurrence of the Senate and House of Representatives may be necessary (except on a question of adjournment) shall be presented to the President of the United States; and before the same shall take effect, shall be approved by him, or being disapproved by him, shall be repassed by two thirds of the Senate and House of Representatives, according to the rules and limitations prescribed in the case of a bill.

Clearly such a hurdle is not the intent of the founders for a piece of legislation – but a simple majority requirement on a line item veto should mean most will be passed and returned to the president. The exceptions will be mainly partisan in nature and perhaps also a weakness in any line item veto proposal. By partisan – the political minority signs onto a bill with the compromise line items. The president, aligned with the majority will veto the line items and thus a bill needing minority support initially is thus denied the portions of the bill necessary for their support. Since the legislators are bright and capable, such compromises will not occur and this will create a roadblock for legislation even when it is generally desired by most members of the majority and with some support of the minority. Partisan fights tend to divide legislative votes on strictly party lines. By making all bills partisan, the willing members within the minority will be constrained from compromise and support.

[Justice and Mercy]

There is a difference between a veto of an entire bill and a line item veto.

There's a difference, but they both allow presidential input in the legislative process.

If that's what you're against it's time to start fighting to get rid of the veto.

As I have stated, the line item veto is essentially allowing the Executive Branch to write legislation.

No, it's allowing the President to veto spending provisions rather than the whole bill.

Presidents are often stuck with this choice: veto something good because it has too much waste tacked to it or allow something incredibly wasteful to pass because it's just THAT necessary to get something on the bill in there.

What if a bill comes through to give the soldier's their ration of bullets (not meant to be literal), but in the process all the Congressman started to see how easily they could push their waste through on this bill. The president either vetoes the waste and allows soldiers to die or allows the waste so soldiers don't die.

The surviving legislation is not what was intended by Congress.

They're free to try and pass the spending provisions by themselves.

Otherwise they're just trying to be dishonest, and pass something based on the merits of what it's attached to.

Congress has a Constitutional mandated control over the federal purse strings.

Congress is corrupt and wasteful.

A line item veto can give the president power to threaten vetoes as a means of punishing political enemies and bullying them into supporting his position on other, unrelated issues.

Again, how often did Clinton do this?

The governors?

The 1996 act that was overturned by the Supreme Court is dead and the advocates are no longer pushing for a resurrection.

And it was a good call by the Court.

A line item veto can also create unfunded mandates by cutting specific appropriations but leave legislation in place requiring compliance by other government units (states, counties, cities, etc.) Such funding may indeed be a necessary compromise by legislators to get the required votes.

If it needs to be funded that badly surely the spending will be passed on it's own merits.

Similarly, Congress already has an established deliberative process to enact a budget. While there are varied proposals that might strengthen this process, H.R. 4890 is unlikely to achieve the legislation's main goal — reduced spending. It is clearly in the purview of Congress to make decisions on spending and tax policies. Congress should retain its own decision-making over such issues, including earmarks, discretionary spending, and entitlement programs.

You know another way they could deliberately reduce spending?

By not attaching pork to bills.

But since that's the problem we can't really trust them to do that, now can we?

Another issue with a line item veto is at what majority will the Congress be able to override such line item vetoes. The constitution currently states:

You didn't read my first post?

Remember, each provision will go back to Congress to be voted on individually, so they can be judged on their own merits.

Clearly such a hurdle is not the intent of the founders for a piece of legislation

They probably didn't intend for the Congressman to tack waste onto bills, either.

but a simple majority requirement on a line item veto should mean most will be passed and returned to the president.

No, it would probably mean most of the provisions would be turned down, because they'd be seen as the waste they are.

Even with a line-item veto, Presidents are limited to vetoing items that actually appear in bills. Yet nearly all pork projects are not actually in legislation but in conference and committee reports and even in press releases. These instructions are not part of the bills and so are not legally binding. Still, the federal agencies that implement the law nearly always follow them. Proposals now before Congress would move earmarks from conference reports to the legislative text itself, providing the president with the opportunity to strike these projects with a veto or rescission.

But the President can take bold action now, without waiting for his line-item veto or for earmarks to migrate back to bills’ legislative text. President Bush could immediately eliminate the majority of pork projects with an Executive Order mandating that the Office of Management and Budget and all federal agencies implement only provisions that appear in actual legislative text, and not provisions in non-binding reports. Additionally, the President should veto any bill that contains express provisions for earmarks, regardless of the bill’s subject.

And there are some that do appear in bills.

What was the given number? 20% of the Federal revenue?

By partisan – the political minority signs onto a bill with the compromise line items. The president, aligned with the majority will veto the line items and thus a bill needing minority support initially is thus denied the portions of the bill necessary for their support. Since the legislators are bright and capable, such compromises will not occur and this will create a roadblock for legislation even when it is generally desired by most members of the majority and with some support of the minority. Partisan fights tend to divide legislative votes on strictly party lines. By making all bills partisan, the willing members within the minority will be constrained from compromise and support.

You mean the bills will be judged, in full, on their own merits?

You don't see how idiotic the system we have now is?

The Congressman who tack the waste onto bills aren't actually voting on the bill, but whether or not the proponents were willing to throw some cash at them.

This is not what the Founders intended. They intended Congressman to actually think about what they're passing, and not just try and please their constituents by throwing money at them so they can get re-elected.

To make it clear, the people who are choosing where our money goes aren't judging the bills they pass on their own merits, but on other variables.

This is a big problem.

[Viking Prince]

I am afraid that you are losing ground in this debate.

To review my main point, again.

There is a difference between a veto of an entire bill and a line item veto.

Your best counter argument is admitting that there is a difference, but you claim that it is not material because they both allow presidential input in the legislative process.

I am certainly not suggesting to get rid of the veto. I am suggesting that the difference is material. As I have stated, the line item veto is essentially allowing the Executive Branch to write legislation.

You have disagreed with this statement, but you are not addressing why it is appropriate for the executive branch t be effectively writing legislation. As I had stated, the surviving legislation is not what was intended by Congress. This means that the legislative branch is writing legislation and there ceases to be the necessary separation of duties as designed in the constitution.

Your statement:

Presidents are often stuck with this choice: veto something good because it has too much waste tacked to it or allow something incredibly wasteful to pass because it's just THAT necessary to get something on the bill in there.

What if a bill comes through to give the soldier's their ration of bullets (not meant to be literal), but in the process all the Congressman started to see how easily they could push their waste through on this bill. The president either vetoes the waste and allows soldiers to die or allows the waste so soldiers don't die.

Yes, this is a tough choice. That was the intention of the framers. You can also criticize the Congress for waiting until the last moment to pass a poor piece of legislation. The responsibility of Congress is to pass legislation in a timely manner. How many times does spending continue with continuing resolutions? Your example is no different. Put the focus where it belongs – on the legislative branch to due it’s constitutional and moral duty. Do not suggest that such poor behavior requires the executive branch to begin writing legislation.

You have stated that the legislature is free to try and pass the spending provisions by themselves. This is not what the legislature had intended however. Let the legislative branch legislate. As to the merits of the legislative lines within a single bill, this is not material to the discussion. This is still the legislative intent and should be followed by the executive branch. Again – I repeat – a veto of a bill is not writing legislation, but a line item veto is writing legislation. To defend a line item veto, you must also concede that there need not be a separation of powers between the branches of government. I f you want to eliminate such distinctions, you are really advocating a parliamentary system of government. Argue for that as the change rather than a sneak attack on the system of separation of powers that exists with the presidential system.

As to your response to my statement that Congress has a Constitutional mandated control over the federal purse strings.

Congress is corrupt and wasteful.

My response would be to throw the bums out and not change the constitution. As citizens, we only get quality in the elected process by insisting on quality. No amount of fiddling with the constitution can substitute for citizens holding elected officials accountable.

I had made a point that a line item veto can give the president power to threaten vetoes as a means of punishing political enemies and bullying them into supporting his position on other, unrelated issues. I did not state that it has happened. You have not disputed the possible problem, but insist that it has not happened which is not a reason to prevent the problem.
I am glad that you concede that the Supreme Court ruled correctly on calling the previous line item veto bill unconstitutional.

Another point that I had made was that a line item veto can also create unfunded mandates by cutting specific appropriations but leave legislation in place requiring compliance by other government units (states, counties, cities, etc.) Such funding may indeed be a necessary compromise by legislators to get the required votes.

Your response :

If it needs to be funded that badly surely the spending will be passed on it's own merits.

Again the original bill as passed is the legislative intent. The sum of the parts is not divisible. The executive may not pick and choose what laws to enforce and also must not be allowed to sign pieces of legislation into law for the very same reasons. Again, this is a separation of powers issue.

You seem to be driven towards a line item veto solely for the expediency of reducing the pork that is within the spending bills. Expediency is a poor substitute for a responsible electorate. What you view as pork may very well be viewed differently by others. This is why the legislative process is sometimes referred to as sausage making. It is best to require the executive to judge the end product as a complete product than to allow the executive to judge the merits or individual parts.


I had mentioned that one of the means to get the political minority to agree to legislation is with compromise line items. The compromise legislation has already been voted on it’s merits and inserted into the bill by the amendment process. There is no purpose served by the line item veto except to prevent such compromises from taking place. The line item veto can be used by the executive as a divide and conquer process and the effective result will be no compromise and no legislation that Congress could agree to collectively. Again, the separation of powers at work.

You had stated:

The Congressman who tack the waste onto bills aren't actually voting on the bill, but whether or not the proponents were willing to throw some cash at them.

This is not what the Founders intended. They intended Congressman to actually think about what they're passing, and not just try and please their constituents by throwing money at them so they can get re-elected.

I will close this post by disagreement with your interpretation of the founder’s thoughts. I believe that the President is neither a leader nor a lawmaker. The President is only an administrator who will carry out the will of the people. The will of the people is expressed by the legislation that has been passed by the legislative branch and presented for signature to the President. For this reason the founders separated the powers of executive from legislative. The line item veto clearly violates the intention of the founders.

[Justice and Mercy]

There is a difference between a veto of an entire bill and a line item veto.

Yes, but since your problem is with presidential input in the legislative process principle demands you also oppose the general veto, no?

I am certainly not suggesting to get rid of the veto. I am suggesting that the difference is material. As I have stated, the line item veto is essentially allowing the Executive Branch to write legislation.

No, it's allowing the Executive Branch to what, in reality, should be seperate bills.

Yes, this is a tough choice. That was the intention of the framers.

No, they didn't intend soldiers to die because Congress couldn't stop throwing money at their constituents.

You can also criticize the Congress for waiting until the last moment to pass a poor piece of legislation. The responsibility of Congress is to pass legislation in a timely manner. How many times does spending continue with continuing resolutions? Your example is no different. Put the focus where it belongs – on the legislative branch to due it’s constitutional and moral duty. Do not suggest that such poor behavior requires the executive branch to begin writing legislation.

The legislative branch is over-stepping their bounds, yes, but that doesn't mean there shouldn't be a line-item veto.

Unrelated spending shouldn't be tacked onto bills. The best way to end this practice is the line-item veto.

You have stated that the legislature is free to try and pass the spending provisions by themselves. This is not what the legislature had intended however. Let the legislative branch legislate. As to the merits of the legislative lines within a single bill, this is not material to the discussion.

It is material to the discussion.

The entire purpose of the Constitution was to limit the powers of government, and be sure those powers they have are carried out efficiently.

A line-item is a good way to increase the efficiency of government.

To defend a line item veto, you must also concede that there need not be a separation of powers between the branches of government.

Not at all. The Executive Branch also has input in the judicial process, and the Legislative Branch has input in the executive process.

And via the general veto, the Executive Branch has input in the legislative process.

My response would be to throw the bums out and not change the constitution. As citizens, we only get quality in the elected process by insisting on quality.

No amount of fiddling with the constitution can substitute for citizens holding elected officials accountable.

I agree, but it simply isn't go to work like that.

The Line-Item veto is another check built into the system. Waste is growing, and something needs to be done to contain it.

In my opinion the Line-Item veto is currently the best answer.

I had made a point that a line item veto can give the president power to threaten vetoes as a means of punishing political enemies and bullying them into supporting his position on other, unrelated issues. I did not state that it has happened. You have not disputed the possible problem, but insist that it has not happened which is not a reason to prevent the problem.

I know it could happen, but how often do Congress stick pork into bills as compared to the problem this might pose?

In my opinion we're helping more than we're potentially harming.

Again the original bill as passed is the legislative intent. The sum of the parts is not divisible.

It is divisible, you know as well as I do that alot of the pork isn't related to the purpose of the bill as devised by it's drafters.

I had mentioned that one of the means to get the political minority to agree to legislation is with compromise line items. The compromise legislation has already been voted on it’s merits and inserted into the bill by the amendment process. There is no purpose served by the line item veto except to prevent such compromises from taking place. The line item veto can be used by the executive as a divide and conquer process and the effective result will be no compromise and no legislation that Congress could agree to collectively. Again, the separation of powers at work.

The purpose of these "compromises" are for the individuals to get their pork through and the proponents to get their bill through, without those voting on the bill to actually consider the merits of it.

I will close this post by disagreement with your interpretation of the founder’s thoughts. I believe that the President is neither a leader nor a lawmaker. The President is only an administrator who will carry out the will of the people. The will of the people is expressed by the legislation that has been passed by the legislative branch and presented for signature to the President. For this reason the founders separated the powers of executive from legislative. The line item veto clearly violates the intention of the founders.

The Founders never intended everything to be voted on it's own merits, the Line-Item veto is meant to uphold this intention.



As a general point, it seems a matter of principle to you regarding the seperation of powers. But, as a matter of pragmatism, do you believe a Line-Item Veto would serve the nation well?

[Viking Prince]

As a general point, it seems a matter of principle to you regarding the separation of powers. But, as a matter of pragmatism, do you believe a Line-Item Veto would serve the nation well?

Yes, it is a matter of principle. The founders felt that tyranny can be made less of a threat if the elected representatives executing the business of government are separated from the tasks of writing the rules controlling the business of government. This is also why the courts are also a separate branch.

The line item veto clearly blurrs the distinction between the activities of government and the rules making process. We are not a parliamentary system. The line item veto is merely a stealth attempt at creating a de facto for of parliamentary government.

A government functions best when its powers are not concentrated in a single authority. By giving the Executive branch both executive and legislative powers – the power of the executive will be increased and possibly increased to such an extent as to relegate the legislative branch to a mere veto body.