2007-02-26 07:28:43 · 12 answers · asked by Neil W 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
It has already been found to be unconstitutional, besides that is what the veto is, a chance for the president to send bills back to congress until they get it right. If the congress feels strongly enough about the veto they can vote to override it but it takes a super majority to do so. It is part of the checks and balance installed in the constitution by the framers.
2007-02-26 07:37:19 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
The line item veto would be the best tool a President could have in cutting wasteful spending. Unfortunately, when the Republicans gave this tool to President Clinton it was deemed unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. There are several proposals to circumvent this ruling but in all practicality a constitutional amendment is the only sure way to make this reality.
2007-02-26 07:34:27 · answer #2 · answered by JHE123 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
a complicated question and confusing to respond to in yahoo solutions. what's needed although, is priority budgeting. the place do our priorities lie? that's the place specific pastimes get entangled and that's the place wasteful spending arises. i could improve a "necessary Spending" record with the aid of bi-partisan participation. well being, training, national protection etc... Secondly, i could then examine how each and each of theses habit employer and ask the complicated questions (those may be the basic-sense form questions no one ever asks) can we easily could desire to spend $25.00 for a water can which could be offered on the interior of sight ironmongery keep for $12.50? or notwithstanding it may be. a itemizing of specific interest initiatives could stick to and returned, i could examine how they habit employer or spend the money they ask for. If the government is investment "the humanities" at say 3 million and 2 of those million funds is going to pay the director of the initiatives wages, then we could desire to ask why? i assume the foremost's, there are a number of hassle-free approaches to get rid of wasteful spending. i think of it in simple terms calls for a truthful prefer to end the activity.
2016-10-02 00:57:46 · answer #3 · answered by favaron 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Automatically vetoing any bill that wasn't about a single topic might work, too. That way, individual bills would have to be self-sufficient. If it's a bad idea by itself, it's not any better of an idea when clustered with a bunch of other bad ideas and one good one.
2007-02-26 07:34:52 · answer #4 · answered by jplrvflyer 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Its the best way to establish a Fourth Reich here in America- way too much power in the Executive Branch.
2007-02-26 08:07:08 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
It's not the best, but it would surely help stop some of the foolish spending that Congress is perpetrating.
2007-02-26 07:33:12 · answer #6 · answered by †Lawrence R† 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
It would require a Constitutional amendment but yes.
2007-02-26 07:32:02 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
It can be used for that or to further a specific narrow agenda. It all depends on who is using it and why.
2007-02-26 07:39:44 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
yes, but it is unfair. when the GOP was in control of congress they willingly trusted clinton and gave him that power. Now things have turned and it wouldn't be fair to have democrats trust the president and gave him that power. It's all politics, screw the people.
2007-02-26 07:31:55 · answer #9 · answered by Matt 4 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Yes, but that would mean that the president would have to actually read the document in front of him.
You can take that as a crack against Bush if you want to....
2007-02-26 07:32:32 · answer #10 · answered by mamasquirrel 5 · 1⤊ 3⤋