If the president decides to veto the bill, can he veto some parts of it or he has to veto it in toto / whole?

Question

To be fair, I will extend the scope of this question.
http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/judiciary/hju65012.000/hju65012_0f.htm
is the ammendment for line item veto.
Appropriations, tariff, revenue and check this out: local bills were ruled to be an exception to the line item veto especially the yearly general appriopriations bill. Check the general appropriations bill out and see the legislative constructs of the law. I'm giving a day for this debate

Answer 1

hahahaha, the other people are wrong. The answer is not yes or no but IT DEPENDS. If it is an appropriation, tariff or revenue bill, item veto is allowed. If it is some other bill, it is not. The rationale is that appropriations, tariff and revenue bills are divided to different sectors and if the president approves on all the appropriations of other departments and disapproves only on one department, then, his veto would be detrimental to public welfare.

Sorry, It took me too long to reply on your comment posted 22 hours ago. The General Appropriations Bill can't be vetoed in toto and is a general exception. Tariff bills are active and shared by the president. Local Bills, well, they are no exceptions and must be a Take it or leave it deal. If I mean to understand local bills as like changing names of local streets etc.

Satisfied?

Answer 2

Flordeluna is incorrect. Laws are laws and follow the same requirements for enactment as set forth in Article I Section 7 of the Constitution. Rachel, TJ and ChrisM are correct.

The line item veto has been ruled unconstitutional by the US Supreme Court for the reasons stated above. It would impermissibly allow a president to alter a bill that was presented by Congress.

The so-called line-item veto currently being debated by Congress isn't really one. What it allows is the president to send the entire bill back (veto it), but by saying that he will pass it if Congress approves just the parts he likes. Congress then re-votes of the modified version, which must pass as normal. Because the final version would be voted on by both chambers of Congress, and then presented to the president, it (theoretically) doesn't violate the constitutional requirements for how a law must be enacted.

Answer 3

The entire bill. Line item veto is unconstitutional as Congress is given the power to make the laws pursuant to the Constitution and the President can only sign them into law. By using line item veto, the President is effectively creating legislation, thus violating the Constitution.

Answer 4

The president has to either approve the entire bill or veto the entire bill. What is in there is all negotiated and played with by the political parties, and while he can use his influence to try and get items taken off, he has no offical power to remove a part of the bill he doesn't agree with.

What you refer to is called a "line-item veto", and that is not a power the president has. Some feel the president should have that power, but if he did, I feel that it would completely change our political process, and would only make the "party in power" more of an absolute power. Our current process has measures that aid in preventing that.

Answer 5

The veto kills the whole thing. Thats why almost every bill that Congress passes has stupid stuff added on. For example, a bill to provide such and such amout of emergency aid to Katrina Hurricane victims might also have $130 million attached to it for a suspension bridge bigger than the Golden Gate that would go to a remote island in Alaska where no one lives. It is called pork barrel spending. So to stop the money going to the useless suspension bridge it also kills the aid to legitimate storm victims.

To veto just parts of a bill would require a line item veto but you can see why Congress does not want something like that - everytime they stuck their fat, greedy little fingers into a taxpayer's wallet they'd run the risk of getting their hand cut off.

This is the way greedy politicians rape taxpayers and steal their money.

Answer 6

Currently he has to either sign the bill as it is or veto the bill as it is. He wants what's called a "Line Item Veto" which would let him pick and choose what parts of a bill he can sign or veto. But alot of people think that would give him too much power.

Answer 7

That would be a line item veto, this is something that all presidents want, but congress won't allow it because then they won't get what they want passed. Thats why er well most presidents veto bills that appear to be great, Like say congress wants to pass oh say a bill that would requireparental notification prior to an abortion, but tacked on to that bill would be a rider saying that any democrat convicted of a crime will be executed well naturally the president would veto it, not because he opposed notification of the parents but because the bill was an extreme measure to the other party.

For a better example please see freedom mammers example

Answer 8

According to the Constitution, he can only veto or pass the bill completely. However, many presidents (especially Bush) have added a note onto them, saying they won't enforce the law if it takes away from his power to run the country. There is a big debate about this right now (the ABA is fighting it), because what he is doing is illegal/unconstitution and takes away from the power of the congress.

Answer 9

Presidential veto power is defined in Section 7 of the Constitution. It applies to the entire bill:
"Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States: If he approve 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."
http://www.archives.gov/national-archives-experience/charters/constitution_transcript.html

So attempts to provide the president with budgetary line item vetoes or other tools runs into conflict with the Constitution.

The current president has taken to issuing "signing statements" at the time he actually signs the bill. He is not the first to do so, but he has taken it to a new and different level than his predecessors. He is, in part, stating within the "signing statement" how he will enforce the law. Some argue that he is claiming a de facto partial veto authority. Certainly there is action afoot seeking to curtail this activity.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14020234/

Answer 10

The US president must veto in toto a bill we have no line item veto as of this date.