Line Item Veto? Do U Want it BACK? Do U Trust the Republican Front Runner?

Question

FACT: The Republican Congress Passed A Presidential Line-Item Veto In 1996:

The Line-Item Veto Passed The House And Senate With Overwhelming Majorities And The Support Of Nearly Every Republican. The Senate passed the line-item veto 69-31, with 50 Republicans and 19 Democrats supporting it. Even liberal Democrats like Sen. Ted Kennedy And Sen. Russ Feingold voted for the line-item veto. In the House, the line-item veto passed 294-134, with 223 Republicans and 71 Democrats supporting it.

FACT: In June 1996, The Supreme Court Decided In Favor Of Mayor Giuliani -yes- the same, FRONT RUNNING Republican Candidate, And Struck Down The Line-Item Veto As Unconstitutional. "

Answer 1

I do like the idea of the line item veto, as it could cut some of the crap that Congress puts into bills as riders.

However, the power of the line item veto is not part of the Constitution. If the country wants a line item veto, lets get an
amendment.

Answer 2

I like the line-item veto; in the right hands, it can drastically cut down on spending. Imagine all the money in pork we'd save with the line-item! Unfortunately, it can also be used in the opposite direction: to gut or outright annihilate the main purpose of the bill while leaving only the pork.

To your second question, I don't trust anyone at this point, Republican or Democrat. When it gets down into the thick of things here in a few months, that's when I'll make my choice; until then, the "debates" and "facts" that are coming out really aren't entirely trustworthy.

Answer 3

In my view, the line-item veto is unconstitutional. The Constitution clearly contemplates that the President will either sign the bill or else he will veto the entire bill. It does not give him the ability to veto specific parts of a bill.

I agree that the President should have a line-item veto (and Congress should be required to adhere to a single-subject rule), but both of those techniques would require a Constitutional amendment to be allowed.

Answer 4

We wouldn't need the line item veto if they didn't keep cramming pork into the bills. I'd much rather pay for some independent project if it's proposed in an open honest way, than if it's sneaked into a bill. Might save us from some of those Bridges to nowhere as well as signing off on bad bills just because of something small in it. Shouldn't every single item we're paying for be scrutinized by the people?

I have an issue with pork and those who hide it in legislation.

Answer 5

Bring Back The Line Item Veto ! We Need The Line Item Veto ! When I found out that Mayor Giuliani was the one responsible for having it declared Unconstitutional, I promised that I would never support him even if he is the Nominee. I would vote for Hillary before I vote for Rudy !

Answer 6

We need either a line item veto or a constitutional amendment prohibiting the attachment of unrelated pork projects and other boondoggles to serious legislation.

Answer 7

He would be unable to veto any expenses that have been approved. He won't be able to strengthen sales or borrow without authorization. He won't be able to monetize the debt by using printing additional funds without FED approval. Politicians communicate doing this and wrecking the economic equipment each few years, yet in 250 years it has in no way occurred. there is not any sparkling constitutional technique to handle this occasion. yet whilst the Treasury does no longer have the money to pay its costs, he can tell them to selectively delay charge of particular instructions of expenses, that's a type of borrowing he does no longer desire authorization for. human beings can the two settle for it or record a declare in the courts, further delaying charge. I say he stops paying the electrical powered bill on the Capitol development, and all Legislative places of work, sends homestead their team, and makes them sit down there and paintings by myself utilising candle easy and hand followers, till they comprehend that returning united statesa. to the stone age does no longer make plenty experience, and we are unamused by using their sport of rooster.

Answer 8

yes id love the line item veto back. unfortunately it would take an amendment process to achieve that.

Answer 9

i have always though a line item veto was needed for the president