What's wrong with the line item veto? how is it unconstitutional?

Question

We elect our president to prevent laws from passing that he doesn't like. If congress sends him a bill with an unrelated provision attached just for polical purposes, doesn't that make congress the one's who are violating checks and balances, not the president for striking out that part? I think the line item veto (as I understand it) makes the constitution stronger. Maybe I'm misunderstanding the meaning of the line item veto.

Answer 1

I'm not exactly sure what makes it unconstitutional. I've heard it said, mainly from congressmen, that it gives the President too much power and unbalances the checks and balances system. It allows him to pick and choose which items pass rather than passing or vetoing the entire bill. It would also prevent Congress from passing 90% of their pork spending crap that they are so fond of (possibly why they are so opposed to it).

During Clinton's term, Congress passed a line item veto for the president, but the Supreme Court struck it down as unconstitutional. So, precedent has been set and I doubt we'll ever see a line item veto approved again.

Answer 2

The Constitution only give the President the right to veto an entire bill. The fact is that Congress sends him bills with many unrelated riders and non-essential spending and earmarks, and the President has to decide whether the meat of the bill is worth the cost in crap.

If I were President, I would, Day One, tell Congress that I will veto ANY bill that comes with unrelated provisions, extraneous riders, or earmarks. I would assign people from the White House staff to work with Congress and keep them informed as to what I consider unrelated, extraneous, or wasteful. And if it came to my desk with any of that on it, I'd veto it even if it shut down the government.

Gotta hold their feet to the fire. Can't blink. Maybe, after four years of that, they would grow up and be less wasteful, stop playing games with taxpayer dollars.

Answer 3

Republicans for years have tried to get the line item veto, but have been blocked every step of the way by Democrats. Ironically, is was Clinton who tried using it (unsucessfully) on some legislation even though it was unconstitutional. It didn't work. That led to a debate on the subject which was pretty much divided along partylines.

Also interesting, when the South seceeded from the Union, it became its own country with its own constitution (almost Identical to the current one) except it had a line item veto. Amazing, almost 150 yrs ago, the Confederates had it. Yet today, we can't get it.

Answer 4

Necro has an accurate answer. In addition it is too powerful of a tool to be given to the president. It means the president can subvert the will of the congress who represent we the people. In the right hands it is a great tool to eliminate pork, but in the wrong hands (as we seem to have in office every other election) it gives the president more power than the congress has not an equal amount as the constitution calls for.

Answer 5

I agree with Necro and David_M... Perhaps the best illustration of the power of a line item veto is to look at how Bush is currently using signing statements: http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/04/30/examples_of_the_presidents_signing_statements/
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20060113.html

As laid out in the Constitution (Presentment Clause), the President has the ability to nullify an act of Congress, and that is by use of the veto.

"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."

"...rather than follow the law and veto bills which he feels are repugnant to the Constitution, President Bush is using these signing statements as a way to nullify them, in practice, as they “relate to the executive branch.”
http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/tag/line-item-veto/

Answer 6

Back when Clinton was president, the Republican Contract with America included line item veto as one of its objectives. As soon as Bush got the presidency and the Republicans controled control two branches of the government, the line item veto disappeared as one of the neocons goals. They no longer want it line item veto because they now control the country

Answer 7

it gives the President legislative powers. (If you take out this work and this sentence, then the meaning is altered to what I want). He can say yes or no, not how he thinks it should be.

separation of powers guys ;)

Answer 8

I agree, all they do is attach crap so they dont pass.