Wow, I actually agree with this. They should be able to vote out stupid b.s. from bills that DON'T have to do with spending as well. I am so sick of hearing about some completely unrelated issue being attached to a bill that is sure to pass. It's so sneaky it makes me embarassed for my country.

This is only the second thing I have ever supported from this administration. The other is building a wall between the US and Mexico.

Bush said in a speech to members of the Manhattan Institute, a conservative think tank based in New York. "I mean, you can't call for fiscal discipline on the one hand and then not pass a tool to enhance fiscal discipline on the other hand. You can't have it both ways, it seems like to me."

...you mean like losing the veto stamp, and signing off on spendtastic budgets for years, then trying to claim the 'fiscal discipline' high ground, George?

i have to wonder what the point of passing legislation that has already been deemed unconstitutional would be, tho...other than election year stupidity, of course.

IamPatSajak: They should be able to vote out stupid b.s. from bills that DON'T have to do with spending as well.

well, only the BS from the other party, of course.

why folks somehow get the impression that this wouldn't be used in the same political manner as the budgets themselves...i dunno.

Yes, it was previously passed and declared unconstitutional. It is also a really bad idea. I also like how Bush claims that this is somehow the big stumbling block to "fiscal responsibility" when his own party is in power and he hasn't even submitted any budgets that cut overall spending.

IamPatSajak: I am so sick of hearing about some completely unrelated issue being attached to a bill that is sure to pass. It's so sneaky it makes me embarassed for my country.

Of course, it never occurs to you that Bush might use this power in the exact opposite way that you think it should be used.

Next up on the agenda: Bring back the Alien and Sedition Acts

Line item veto is excellent idea.

It's my understanding if a President exercizes the line item veto, it can be overruled by a 2/3 majority vote. (just like any other veto).

What's the big deal?

/sick of politicians padding bills with frivolous shiat. You should too,

Line item veto...I guess some people think it's an evil Bush invention.

Bad idea...the line item veto shifts too much power from legislative to executive branch. Also making it easier to pass laws will mean even faster growth of government.

Someone should probably refer the President to Clinton v. City of New York, 524 US 417 (1998).

Such a bad idea. Is it really too much to ask that our elected officals produce quality bills? If this passes they are just going to dump pork onto every bill and make the President decide what goes and what stays. Anyways, it was voted illegal when Clinton had the power and it still is.

They tried this before and it was struck down by the Supreme Court 6-3. It's not gonna pass the court.

It's un-Constitutional. They can go ahead and pass it, but the Supremem Court should (and, of course, they're partisan, so who knows) should block it.

There's no way to restrict it to spending bills only; used on other bills, it gives the president even more un-checked power.

And Bush talking about fiscal restraint is like the Ayatollah talking about religious freedom.

Line item veto puts far too much power in the hands of the "majority". Gotta watch out for the little guy, too.

It's amazing people are in favor of giving the Executive more and more power. Let's just switch to a monarchy and be done with it. You retards can't be trusted with voting anyway.

Major Thomb

Bad idea...the line item veto shifts too much power from legislative to executive branch. Also making it easier to pass laws will mean even faster growth of government.

What?! At least this has congressional oversite, line item vetos will require a simple majority to overturn. I honestly cannot believe that you oppose this and support warrantless surveilance.

Cyberluddite- great job.

Jim

Bbbb... but Clinton!!!

I think the main problem with the line item veto is that it really kills Congress' compromise abilities, unless they have something in mind to prevent it.

Dem: "We'll let you drill ANWR if you let us have gay marriage."
Rep: "Sounds fair. Passed."
Bush: "Haha! I veto the gay marriage part!"
Dem: D'oh!



Fun fact: The Confederate Constitution gave the President a line-item veto.

It was a great idea for Clinton and it still is. Yeah LIne Item!!! I thought the high court struck it down under clinto though as violating the seperation of powers? Why is it different this time?

This doesn't let the president just 'cut out' parts. Read more carefully... it allows him to earmark sections to be sent back to congress, and then congress can vote to keep the marked section or remove it.

This isn't a line-item veto as much as it is a way to force congress to take a second look at parts of the laws they've already voted to pass.

Oh, and before I hear the 'zomg, you blindly follow george w' crap: I think he's a terrible president and generally a piece of sh*t. Just because someone is an idiot doesn't mean they can't have the occasional good idea.

"it can be overruled by a 2/3 majority"

The 'line-item veto' proposed only requires a 1/2 majority to overturn.

Nope. The power to create laws is the exclusive domain of the Legislative Branch. We do not have a parliamentary system where the prime minister gets to sit in and affect the deliberations of the legislature. Basic civics here folks.

And besides, the Executive Branch has already seized enough power.

Supreme Court Version 2006, bundled with Bush V2.0, would most certainly deem it constitutional.

Major Thomb: Also making it easier to pass laws will mean even faster growth of government.

And this my friends is the most intelligent thing I have ever heard from Major Thomb the last thing we need is the government to be more efficient at adding to itself.

Doesn't ANYBODY remember when Clinton tried to get this passed 10 years ago and all the Republicans flipped the F out?

It's like this country has no attention spa...ooo a quarter!

Maybe he ought to try the regular Veto before asking for a fancier one.

SoxSweepAgain: It's un-Constitutional. They can go ahead and pass it, but the Supremem Court should (and, of course, they're partisan, so who knows) should block it.

I'm not so sure.

If it is, it's as bad as the Executive Order, which presidents have been using for decades to prevent funding for things like clinics that permit abortin, stem cell research, and such.

Budget items must originate in the House. They can be changed elsewhere, however.

I don't think this is unconstitutional, if Congress delegates that authority to the executive. I also wonder why Republicans would want it now, but cried foul when Clinton was in office.

It would be a great way to cut the pork. At least the other guy's pork, anyway, which is still an improvement.

Xetal

"it can be overruled by a 2/3 majority"

The 'line-item veto' proposed only requires a 1/2 majority to overturn.

Even better.

EvilEgg: Otherwise they'll pass a funding bill for ANWAR drilling and aid for parapelegic children. Then veto the children part.

Exactly.

Supreme Court Version 2006, bundled with Bush V2.0, would most certainly deem it constitutional.

Shadow Blasko

I hear Norway is nice this time of year. And I know you're completely right but still I can hope.

/Calling Mr. Smith!

Supreme Court Version 2006, bundled with Bush V2.0, would most certainly deem it constitutional.

SirCodeAlot It was a great idea for Clinton and it still is. Yeah LIne Item!!! I thought the high court struck it down under clinto though as violating the seperation of powers? Why is it different this time?

If your lazy ass had bothered to read the huge 479 word article...

The bill that passed the House is a watered-down version of a more sweeping law that the Supreme Court struck down in 1998, saying it took too much spending authority away from Congress. Bush said the new legislation would meet the court's constitutional requirements.

OH NO, I can't veto the whole bill because of one stupid piece in it. Think of what they would say behind my back.



Here is what a real president needs to do:

1. Upon receipt of a bill with useless or porkbarrel crap stuffed into it. Veto the whole fricken thing.
2. rinse and repeat.


Hell, elect me and I'll bring a huge rubber stamp that says "VETOED: Do it right next time farktards!"

EvilEggThey should instead pass a single issue law. So new laws can only deal with a single issue.

Thank you!

For years I've been confused as hell about why this isn't the case.

Personally, I think if the American public started demanding such things it would do more good than this proposal would. Especially since nothing could be added in last minute and would be less likely slip under the media's / public's radar.

Cyberluddite: The line-item veto has been tried before, and has been ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.

I don't remember that.

Cite?
/not saying it hasn't, but want to make sure you aren't making shiat up

I didn't trust Clinton with a line-item veto, and I sure as hell don't trust Bush with it. Giving the executive power to alter bills and sign them into law without any review is just plain reckless.

Allowing the President to strike out "bad" parts of laws is awfully tempting. I understand this. But it's just too much power with too few safeguards.

Tarl3k

I'm pretty sure that the Republicans have always wanted this.