What is wrong with the president having line item veto power?

Answer 1

Its been found to be unconstitutional, I believe citing separation of powers.

Answer 2

A line item veto would essentially give a president power to legislate by choosing specific items to cut from already written (and voted upon) laws. In other words, the congress that you elect would no longer have control over the substance of the laws that you have to follow. A line item veto might sound like a great idea when you like the person sitting in the oval office, but would confer entirely too much power upon the Executive Branch of our government. Imagine a president that you detested wielding that sort of influence.

Answer 3

I wanna respond to dr_tom_cruise_md...

You state that th is president has used the veto pen less... Of course he has because for 6 years his party controlled the 3 major branches of government. Why would he veto any bill that fattens the pockets of the most crooked political party on the planet.

if this president was so willing to work with the other party than why does he threaten veto on the Iraq spending bill. It is obvious he doesn't give one damn about what the american people have to say. We have stated loud and clear... leave Iraq, does he listen? NO! Do you know why? because he wouldn't be able to rape the Iraqi's of all the oil so him and his cronies can continue to fatten their wallets.

This is the simple reason why it is wrong for a president to have line item veto power.... When one part controls more of the givernment than the other it is no longer about what is right for the american people it is about who has the bigger falice and who is willing to wave it in public. He wants to show the world he doesn't give a damn about the american people because he wants to show the democrats whose the boss, and in the mean time the troops and the american public suffer under the rule of a moron.

I am at least glad no one has decided to blow us up based on this idiots actions. They are intelligent enough to see the american public wants nothing to do with him and I think that is the only thing sparing us from total annihilation.

Answer 4

it is wrong because it gives the executive branch (the president) unproportional power over the other branches. then not only is the president able to completely veto laws and bills from the legislative branch, but they can in theory change the meaning of bills. Say there was something that was passed in congress and then went to the president concerning welfare. Well the president could take out certain parts to completely change it, for example it could read welfare will be offered to every citizen of the united states. this service should not be given for greater than a period of 1 year. well the president could take out the line that set the time limit therefore giving welfare to every american for as long as they like. while that was just an example, this could be the case in any bill, and taking out a certain line could completely change congresses intent

Answer 5

Just because it has been found unconstitutional does not mean the president should not have that ablility. If the consitution were ammended to give the President the line item veto then it would no longer be unconsitutuional.

in respond to deadlandsthemove:
your statement "wouldn't be able to rape the Iraqi's of all the oil so him and his cronies can continue to fatten their wallets."
proves that you are completely ignorant of the real issues and pretty much invalidates any arguement that you have.

Answer 6

There are a couple of points that are missing from every other response you got:

1.) If the President had the authority for a line item veto, it would work just like the current veto powers that he has. In other words, all congress would have to do to override his veto is muster enough votes to override his veto, SO, contrary to waht these self-appointed congressional scholars have written, it would not be unconstitutional, nor would it lead to increased pork. It stops these Secular Progressives right in their tracks when they want to use taxpayer dollars to buy votes from the special interest groups.

2.) I live in Florida and our Governor HAS the line item veto power, and it has saved us millions of dollars because our former Governor, who also happens to be the President's Brother, was famous for vetoing all sorts of pork from bills presented to him. Like I said, if he vetos something that's really important to the legislature, then all they proponants have to do is convince their counterparts that the item is worthwhile and garner enough votes to override the veto.

The line itm veto is a good thing and should be adopted nationwide. It's just too bad that the Secular Progressives don't like it, but I don't like them squandering my tax dollars to buy votes for themselves either.

Answer 7

Nothing. Line item veto would give a responsible president a chance to keep knucklehead congress in check with waisting tax dollars on bridges to no where or a Johnny Appleseed Museum.

Answer 8

Fortunately our illustrious president has killed any chance of this happening. This is because his power grabs from Congress have gone far beyond any former president and already qualify as illegal. Ever hear of "signing statements"? Illegal wiretaps? Data mining? Torture memos?

King George (and executioner Rove) doesn't think he needs to obey the laws Congress pass already;a line item veto would be like giving pure heroin to an addict. The balance of power which keeps our democracy functioning would evaporate before you could say "Give me Dick!". Then he would literally become "the decider".

Basically whoever could steal an election would run the whole freak show for 8 years. NO THANKS!

Answer 9

The shape purely provide the President the outstanding to veto an entire bill. if actuality learn that Congress sends him expenses with many unrelated riders and non-needed spending and earmarks, and the President has to compliment whether the beef of the bill is relatively particularly worth the value in crap. If I have been President, i might, Day One, tell Congress that i will veto ANY bill featuring unrelated provisions, extraneous riders, or earmarks. i might assign human beings from the White abode group to artwork with Congress and save them recommended as to what I evaluate unrelated, extraneous, or wasteful. And if it got here to my table with any of that on it, i might veto it whether it close down the government. Gotta carry their ft to the hearth. can not blink. possibly, after 4 years of that, they might advance up and be much less wasteful, provide up enjoying video games with taxpayer funds.

Answer 10

Absolutely nothing. First of all, as an ex-veteran of the Vietnam war, a "president" unlike senators and congress(men-women) are elected to confront "world" situations, not just domestic. The president, especially the one we are under at the present time, though, unpopular on the war in Iraq, DID what was NECESSARY after 911, though that too was unpopular. The senate and congress looks at the men and women who have died since that time, but as an ex-serviceman, THAT'S what SERVING entails when you swear an oath to DEFEND this country, "though" you may die. It's part of WEARING the uniform. For the president to "veto" anything that comes out of the senate, should be his POWER and PRIVILEGE for one who is the one who will FACE the consequences of failure when and if they occur. It won't be the senators or congress peoples butt's hanging out, it's going to be his and his alone. Remember Nixon? Alot of persons view the loss of american lives at the present as HUGH. In ONE "day" terrorists killed almost the same amount of casualties as have been lost in 4 years. As an ex-special forces Marine during the Vietnam conflict, do you think it won't happen again, if the U.S. let's down it's guard? President Bush may be unpopular NOW, but it's because of his DECISIONS people like the senate can now judge and criticize, ALIVE, rather than with a plane up their butts. Without his leadership, whose to say we would not be looking at "millions" of lives lost rather than afew thousand who "chose" to be where they are at to defend human rights. Of Americans as well as those of innocent Iraqi's. As much as people have put down "how" Bush went into Iraq, and they found no weapons of mass destruction, most FORGET the demonic acts of this man upon his own peoples. President's SHOULD have "authority" above that of those who forget what America is all about............

Answer 11

It's unconstitutional and impractical.

First, Congress is the legislative branch. To allow the Executive to get involved in writing (and editing is writing) legislation would be illegal (as the Supreme Court said a decade ago).

Second, the President could hold anyone's pork hostage until the President's pork was added to any given bill. Result: more pork, not less! The President would be able to ruin any legislator, for purely political reasons if he felt like it, by blocking that legislator's ability to take other peoples' money for his own district.