Posted on 03/22/2018 8:36:14 AM PDT by Mr. K
There is nothing that expressly forbids a line-item veto.
It is a common business practice.
It is time for Trump to just DO IT. Refuse to spend on useless things.
Obamacare, for example, is a multi-trillion -dollar failure.
I believe this was discussed by the Supreme Court in the past. Congress tried to give the President a line item veto, but the Supremes stated that they could not change it without a Constitutional Amendment.
If anyone remembers this please chime in. If they know different also chime in.
Been done. Unconstitutional.
Clinton v. City of New York, 1998.
Takes a Constitutional amendment.
"In Clinton v. City of New York, the Supreme Court found that the line-item veto violated the Presentment Clause of the Constitution, which says that the president does not have the power to unilaterally amend or repeal legislation passed by Congress."
Yes there is. Article I, Section 7: "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." Congress crafts the Bill. The president approves or vetoes what Congress sends him, not just part of it.
Congress passed it, Clinton tried it, the Supreme Court struck it down.
However, in the case of “Obama vs. America”, apparently it was found constitutional for some presidents, depending on party and race, to do whatever they like.
You’re correct. I remember CONgress kicking it around.
huh?
Repeat: Line item veto would require a Constitutional amendment.
It was passed and Bill Clinton used it for a while.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Line_Item_Veto_Act_of_1996
Is it actually unconstitutional? or was the supreme court at the time politically biased? I always thought it would be a good way to get rid of the Pork/Payoffs the Traitors/CONgress inserted into the budget.
Without reading it, there is plenty of precedent for Congress off-loading its Constitutional responsibilities on to the Executive. Line item veto would just be more of the same. The case was likely decided ideologically rather than on precedent. (Again, that’s without reading details).
Yes, it is. Congress writes legislation, that is clearly stated in Article I. The President either signs what they send him or he vetoes what they send him, Article I again. Nothing in the Constitution, expressed or implied, allows the president to write his own legislation by picking and choosing parts of what Congress passed.
there was a virtual line item veto up until Nixon
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impoundment_of_appropriated_funds
mpoundment is an act by a President of the United States of not spending money that has been appropriated by the U.S. Congress. Thomas Jefferson was the first president to exercise the power of impoundment in 1801. The power was available to all presidents up to and including Richard Nixon, and was regarded as a power inherent to the office. The Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 was passed in response to perceived abuse of the power under President Nixon. Title X of the Act removed that power, and Train v. City of New York (whose facts predate the 1974 Act, but which was argued before the U.S. Supreme Court after its passage), closed potential loopholes in the 1974 Act. The president’s ability to indefinitely reject congressionally approved spending was thus removed.[1]
Some related questions the purpose of which is to suggest some potential alternative strategies. The overall question is what flexibility does Trump have.
1. Does Trump have to spend the appropriations?
2. Can the appropriations be slow walked and spending delayed?
3. Is there leeway in requisite spending in the allocation?
a. Give less to sanctuary cities/states
b. Do not allocate to certain organizations
c. Call a group a name such as community center but have that group do something else. For example - say there is allocations for community centers and there is an organization of 100 people - 5 of which are administrative and 95 who are capable of being ICE agents or who can be used to support ICE administratively - which allows for more ICE agents in the field.
I wonder if it would have been ok had O’bunghole tried it
I agree, except not for an amendment that would give the president line item veto power.
Consider that most post-17th Amendment ratification bills dealing with domestic policy and domestic spending for the last 80+ years are probably unconstitutional anyway, such bills not only based on stolen state powers, but also state revenues uniquely associated with those powers, such revenues stolen by means of unconstitutional federal taxes.
“Congress is not empowered to tax for those purposes which are within the exclusive province of the States.” Justice John Marshall, Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.
”From the accepted doctrine that the United States is a government of delegated powers, it follows that those not expressly granted, or reasonably to be implied from such as are conferred, are reserved to the states, or to the people. To forestall any suggestion to the contrary, the Tenth Amendment was adopted. The same proposition, otherwise stated, is that powers not granted are prohibited [emphasis added].” —United States v. Butler, 1936.
"The smart crooks long ago figured out that getting themselves elected to federal office to make unconstitutional tax laws to fill their pockets is a much easier way to make a living than robbing banks." —me
"Federal career lawmakers probably laugh all the way to the bank to deposit bribes for putting loopholes for the rich and corporations in tax appropriations laws, Congress actually not having the express constitutional authority to make most appropriations laws where domestic policy is concerned. Such laws are based on stolen state powers and uniquely associated stolen state revenues." —me
So instead of an amendment to the Constitution that gives the president line item veto power, the amendment needs to repeal the ill-conceived 17th Amendment imo.
The 16th Amendment can disappear too.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.