Clinton suggested it, and govenors have it. Should the chief exectutive?
2006-06-24 03:26:03 · 10 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Government
This question has been around for years. Basically, it depends upon which side of the fence you are on. I don't think it will ever happen, because the opposite side will definitely oppose it.
In an argument against it, would you want it if we had some war monger prez who wanted to obliterate the world?
2006-06-24 03:29:40 · answer #1 · answered by wanninonni 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Can we do it like, on a trial basis, with the main objective being for the veto to be used to whittle away at the federal budget until it's balanced, and then have an annual re-approval based on past successful performance?
Congress has become spend-thrift. The country's 8.4 trillion in the red, maybe more by now...the veto is the capacity to voice AGAINST their decisions, to prevent bills from going forward if there's a flaw or serious problem. Line-item veto is more precise, can be used(if used properly and ethically) to weed out Sen. Fatbody's private pet pork projects...and if Congress can't act As A Body to reform their spending problem, then maybe a line-item veto is a good tool...then again, the line-item thing can be a partisan tool, too, could cut both ways...
2006-06-24 04:00:48 · answer #2 · answered by gokart121 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The answer is YES. It will never happen because of pork-barrel politicians. The people can demand it. The House can be persuaded to pass legislation to support it because they are up for election every two years. The Senate only has 1/3 of it's members up for re-election, so the other 2/3's don't really have a vested interest in giving the President veto power over their pork-barrel projects.
2006-06-24 03:40:36 · answer #3 · answered by Richtree 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Definitely. It forces congress to vote separately on each item that the president sees as unnessisary. In my opinion it doesn't go far enough. There should be a way for a large minority in congress to separate out specific items to force voting on as well.
This whole attitude that they can put junk in any legislation is horrible.
2006-06-24 07:11:51 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Definitely; it puts pressure on Congress to get real with their legislation particularly on budgetary items. These guys attach some pretty silly stuff to budget legislation that the president should be able to strike.
2006-06-24 03:28:04 · answer #5 · answered by netjr 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
If I recall, Clinton had this for a bit, but the Supreme court took it away from him.
Im for it if it is done right (where it could only be used on certain provisions and other restraints). But otherwise im against it
2006-06-24 03:35:54 · answer #6 · answered by Alex Q 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Clinton did NOT suggest it............. he let it drop when it expired under his watch.... he didn't have the guts to go to Congress and get it extended.........
Of Course the President (any President) should have it, to fight this out of control spending from Congress.....
2006-06-24 04:22:14 · answer #7 · answered by T_C_ 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes, but it is unconstitutional. It would take an amendment to the constitution to provide it legally to the president. I am all for it.
2006-06-24 03:31:06 · answer #8 · answered by Modest intellect 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
YES, YES, YES, YES! It is the only way he is going to be able to get a leash on this spen happy congress.
2006-06-24 03:28:51 · answer #9 · answered by Spirit Walker 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, it's not Constitutional.
2006-06-24 03:50:15 · answer #10 · answered by Mortis 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋