Partial Veto

[JakeHero]

We all can agree that every institute has its flaws and exploits. Some of these are simply loopholes, while others are intended, but one problem still arises that many representatives use to bullshit everyone and pass something only in their interests.

Passing bills is writing them and trying to get it approved and finally signed by the President. Something alot of senators do is try include their shitty ideas on bills that are largely supported. An example would be a resolution to enforce environmental laws, while some senator could stick on the bill a section about how retroactive-abortion should be legal.

Now, an idea Bill Clinton and Al Gore came up with was to give the President the right of partial-veto. This means a President could sign into law one part of a bill and veto the other as to get rid of this political maneuver. This measure, inexplicitly, was never implimented.

I want to hear your take on this idea. I am aware it is already in effect in some legislatures, so I don't want to hear "That wasn't Clinton's idea, ya twat." Do you think this is a good measure or will compromise the system?

[Memorize]

Considering the dems in congress are willing to pussy-foot their way around funding the troops, then yes.

[SyntheticTacos]

I think that if the President is awarded the power to veto certain sections of those bill and sign the rest in the law, Congress should still have the power to overturn the veto on the parts he did not sign into law by means of a 3/4 vote. However I do see the problem of making the legislative process even slower this way.

[UWDarDar17]

The partial veto, or line-item veto as it is normally called, is prevalent in U.S. states as a power of the governor. Giving this power to a president is a tricky subject. While I agree that it probably could cut down on pork barrel spendng, the line-item veto also bestows tremendous power to the president in terms of legislation, and it can possibly upset the series of checks and balances our Founding Fathers established.

During Clinton's term, he didn't just ask for the line-item veto; he GOT the line-item veto through the Line-Item Veto Act of 1996. This act was immediately challenged (one of the leaders of the challenge was Senator Robert Byrd (WV-D)) in the courts, and in 1998 the Supreme Court ruled the act unconstitution by a 6-to-3 vote in Clinton v. City of New York.

The majority opinon, presented by Justice Stevens, stated that the presidental use of the line-item veto violated the Presentment Clause of the Constitution. The Presentment Clause is, in summary, the process of how a bill becomes a law in the federal system. The justices decided that the lack of mention of the line-item veto in the Clause is the same thing as "an express prohibition", and that the President must approve or reject a bill entirely. The majority opinion stated that the Line-Item Veto Act violated the separation of powers and threatened individual liberty.

Justice Kennedy's concurring opinion stated that the act would "enhance the President's power to reward one group and punish another, to help one set of taxpayers and hurt another, to favor one State and ignore another."

Recently, the 109th Congress attempted to pass the Legislative Line Item Veto Act of 2006, which was not as encompassing as the previous act, and the President could send a bill back to Congress for 45 days to vote on the riders. The bill passed in the House, but died in the Senate when the 109th Congress ended.

Instead, President Bush uses "signing statements". A signing statement is where the president says that, while he will sign a bill into law, he will not enforce certain provisions he disagrees with. Some see this as effectively a line-item veto, since non-enforcement is nearly the same as vetoing a bill. Thus, a constitutional issue is raised regarding these statements.

I for one see line-item vetos as a violation of the separation of powers and checks and balances. It gives far too much power to the president over Congress. The Founding Fathers intended for the legislature to be the most powerful branch, and this certain power weakens the legislature. The line-item veto effectively lets the president make his own laws.

[fli]

I don't agree with the idea...
Congress most of the time compromise on things on a bill.

what would make a republican or democratic president remove the republican or democratic parts of the bill?

They could just nitpick on things... better if it was fully accepted or not accepted at all.

[stafffighter]

At 6/2/07 07:57 PM, Memorize wrote: Considering the dems in congress are willing to pussy-foot their way around funding the troops, then yes.

We get it. You're Republican. Without going into a flame war over that the issue isn't as much pussy footing as it is goverment cannot function if the different brances aren't able to make stands.

[reviewer-general]

Congressmen / -women that put huge amounts of pork into bills for their own pet projects should be shot in not-so-nice places until dead.

[Dr-Worm]

Besides our 100% broken beaurocracy and the fact that the popular vote doesn't actually count (unless I'm missing something here), I think that "riders" on bills might be the biggest gaping flaw with our government. I think the idea of a partial veto is great. It means that we don't have to miss out on something that could really help America just because someone wants to put a ridiculous rider on it.

[UWDarDar17]

What do you actually think pork-barrel projects are? Do you think that it's taking government money to build a new wing to your senator's house?

Pork projects are those that are often things you want, like a bypass for a congested highway. Bridges are often pork projects.

Not all pork is bad, and you would certainly want a congressman who brings home money for these projects than one who doesn't. If they don't, that means that there isn't enough money for the state to build all those things you want.

Some pork is good. Too much is a bad thing.

[Bolo]

At 6/3/07 01:21 AM, Tal-con wrote: A line item veto would be a breach of presidential authority. Congress proposes plans to the president, and sometimes vice versa, but you can't have a president picking and choosing which parts of a bill he wants to follow, without Congressional approval. It's just not America-like.

I agree. It oversteps the bounds of the checks-and-balances system that governs the nation. In this manner, a president could gain an overwhelmingly large amount of power, and the ability of congress to debate ideas would be severely handicapped.

[Dr-Worm]

Not really. The partial veto wouldn't be word for word. The president would just be able to pick off unwanted riders, which Congress could vote to override.

[Bolo]

At 6/3/07 01:47 AM, Dr-Worm wrote: Not really. The partial veto wouldn't be word for word. The president would just be able to pick off unwanted riders, which Congress could vote to override.

Yeah, but when does 3/4 of Congress ever agree on ANYTHING?

[SyntheticTacos]

At 6/3/07 01:55 AM, Bolo wrote:

At 6/3/07 01:47 AM, Dr-Worm wrote: Not really. The partial veto wouldn't be word for word. The president would just be able to pick off unwanted riders, which Congress could vote to override.

Yeah, but when does 3/4 of Congress ever agree on ANYTHING?

Good point, but if the President couldn't veto those certain parts he might just veto the entire bill, and then you'd need 3/4 of Congress to agree on that to overturn that veto.

[Memorize]

At 6/2/07 10:25 PM, stafffighter wrote:

We get it. You're Republican. Without going into a flame war over that the issue isn't as much pussy footing as it is goverment cannot function if the different brances aren't able to make stands.

Haha, and what party did the president who wanted the "partial veto" belong to?

[Tri-Nitro-Toluene]

At 6/3/07 02:48 AM, Memorize wrote: Haha, and what party did the president who wanted the "partial veto" belong to?

Democrat, though if you read the rest of the thread, you'll see that Bush is actually doing the same sort of thing under a different name, and Bush is a republican, so get off your high horse. Both of the major parties are as bad as the other.

[HighlyIllogical]

Good idea – but it could be bad...Riders are attached to bills for good reasons quite often.

[Dr-Worm]

At 6/3/07 09:57 AM, HighlyIllogical wrote: Good idea – but it could be bad...Riders are attached to bills for good reasons quite often.

In which case the President wouldn't veto it. I think we should give the President the benefit of the doubt on their good intentions.

[Memorize]

At 6/3/07 06:28 AM, Tri-Nitro-Toluene wrote:

Democrat, though if you read the rest of the thread, you'll see that Bush is actually doing the same sort of thing under a different name, and Bush is a republican, so get off your high horse.

In my entire life, the partial veto was the only thing I ever agreed with Clinton on.

Both of the major parties are as bad as the other.

Nah. Sure, they both may be bad, but a partial veto is needed because congress democrats usually fuck things up.

[MortifiedPenguins]

I would say bad idea.

Bills are passed with enough trouble today, even when some add ons are tacked to it( such a as Peanut subsidies to gain the senate votes from Georgia).

But to do a partial veto would make it even more nitpicky. No longer would there be a comromise, there would be arguments about every bloody little thing.

Maybe if it had some safeguards attacked I would like it better.