Bush Wants to Destroy Checks and Balances

Remove all ads!

One thing that's getting very little publicity (to my shock) is Bush's suggestion that Congress give him authority to do a line item veto.

I'll give a little detail to those who are unfamiliar with the term. When Congress passes a bill, it goes to the president who has two choices. He can sign the bill, in which case it becomes a law, or he can veto the bill, in which case it goes back to Congress. if vetoed, Congress can over-ride the presidential veto if two-thirds of the House and Senate vote yes, in which case it becomes a law, if they can't, the bill is dead. However, a line item veto is completely different. When a bill comes to the president to sign, he would be able to effectively line out certain articles in the bill, and only approve the measures he likes.

This is a destruction of the checks and balances system in our government. What happens more often than not is that bills contain compromises between the two parties. It's a way of getting more wide-spread support for a bill. The Republicans want issue A, while the Democrats want issue B. You put both issues in the same bill, and you'll likely get widespread approval of the bill. What usually happens is both parties will agree to let the other side have what they want, if they get their issue passed as well. A line item veto would destroy such compromises, because what would happen is the bill would go to Bush, and he would line out issue B that the Democrats want, and then sign the bill. So the Republicans get what they want, and the Democrats get nothing. Of course, the Democrats also know this, so a line item veto would only ensure that there would be absolutely no compromises at all in the Senate. The ability for a President to veto is already a power that may be too great for one person to hold. A line item veto places way too much power in the hands of a single person.

 

@ Aldeth,

I'd be interested to read some articles on the subject. Can you post a few links to what you've read so far?

Also, how close is this to happening? The idea doesn't surprise me in the least, but it does surprise me that this is the first I've heard of it. But then it has been a busy week for me.

 

I'll see what I can find out for you, but like I said, it's not getting much publicity. I have no idea how close this is to happening, and the first I heard of it was when I listened to Bush's State of the Union Address on Tuesday night. My response was, "no, NO! and NOOOOOOOOOO!"

 

There are good ideas and there are bad ideas; this is one of the latter. I seriously doubt that the senate is THAT tightly controlled by the conservatives for it to pass.

 

Well, here's all I have been able to find on the net. Fortunately, it appears that the line item veto power has already been reviewed by the Supreme Court who deemed it unconstitutional. At least that sounds like good news.

The site is partly opinion, and definitely slanted to the left (as if you won't be able to tell by the title), but at least it appears that the Supreme Court case is factual, which is of paramount importance here.

 

Hasn't every administration since Reagan pushed to get a line-item veto? If Congress wouldn't give it to the beloved Uncle Ronnie, there's no way King George will get the privilege.

 

I think a line item veto is great -- it would prevent pork. But then, laws which prevent pork would be better. In a line item veto, the individual items could be reinstated with a two-thirds majority vote.

The line item veto was a big point for the elder Bush and even Clinton tried to get it. After all, Slick Willie had it as governor of Arkansas. So Bush-Clinton-Bush ... Rally hit it dead on.

 

@BTA and T2B,

While what you two are saying has merit, I think you are being extremely idealistic in your perspective. If used responsibly, it is true that a line item veto could have great benefits. However, to think that such a system is not open to corruption and abuse as I outlined above is simply naive.

 

I like the line item veto also. It's nothing new to American politics, in fact you likely live in a State where it's allowed...only 7 don't have it.

The reason the line item veto was found unconstitutional was a matter of how the measure was enacted against Bills that are in the process of becoming statutes once signed by the President...it boiled down to a statute being altered. All it would take would be for the Supreme Court to legally define the process, and it would be perfectly constitutional. The Supreme Court only found the line item veto to be unconstitutional as structured by the 1996 legislation that created it.

Those of you who see this as another Bushist plot to usurp power should realize that the only US President to actually use a line item veto was Bill Clinton...and it proved to be indispensible toward obtaining a balanced budget, in fact it would have never been balanced were it not for the power...nor will it ever be again without it.

 

Rally is right. I think every president, at least in the last 60 years, has tried to get the line item veto. The pork barrel issue is a thorny one. Imo this is a "Catch 22" situation. You're not going to win no matter what you do.

 

No, it's not the same, because the president then has the power to destroy/ignore the compromises that were made to get the bill passed in the first place. Through use of line-item veto, he can distort the purpose and effect of a bill until it is unrecognizable.

Getting rid of pork is great, but this isn't the way to do it; it will cause problems at least as severe as pork-barreling.

 

I think what this boils down to is:
With it the President has more power and can do more good; he can also do more bad. The power itself is neither good nor bad, but individual Presidents having it might be.

Personally, I oppose it because I think it gives one man too much power. Considering everything Bush has been able to squeeze out of what the President is already entitled to, I'd consider doing away with some of the stuff that already exists instead. I'd rather handicap the good presidents than give power to the bad ones.

 

Who was that guy again who wrote that law-spirit thingy? If understand correctly, an inherent flaw of the two-party system (badly-scrambled-laws) is an excuse for the diverting legislative powers to the executive? Ha, deterioration! And they try that since 60 years... Roosevelt, the emperor... More executive powers for an even fatter and more centralised state!

Parliaments never do anything useful or efficient. That's why they are so good for the prosperity of a country and freedom of it's citizens. There's no better state than one crippled to idleness by an overpowering legislative-branch. Always fear the elegant and swift hand of the executive branch.

 

oops, here I disagree with BTA and agree with AMaster.

Pork barrel legislature is seldom integral to the bill. It is tacked on to an important bill in order to get (sneak) it through. It's somewhat this way.

"If you let me have that grant for pig farms I'll let you have that chemical factory you want."

A Democrate wants the pig farm and a Republican wants the chemical factory. A Republican President might veto the pig farm but leave in the chemical plant. Why would enough Republicans be willing to join with the Democrats to come with the necessary 2/3rds majority to override the veto?

edit: Taking a look at what I just said Maybe that is one way of getting rid of pork barrelling.

 

The Legislature could override, yes, but that is far harder to accomplish than merely passing a bill. The Legislature can draft a new bill, certainly, but what's to prevent another line-item veto? For that matter, now that one party, presumably the party with the man in the oval office, got (most of) what it wanted from the bill that was already passed, what incentive does it have to aid the other party in achieving whatever it was thwarted on?

Line item vetoes would be fine if the Legislature had to approve the bill a second time following the veto, before the bill became law. That would head off most of the problems I envision.

 

@AMaster: Agreed. Let the president have his line item veto, but Congress should have to reapprove the altered bill in order for it to pass. Consider it congress' right to veto a veto.