Line Item Veto that passes Judicial muster.

Bravetomorrow

[bravetomorrow]

This is my first post to FreeRepublic. I have been lurking for a while. I am the author of www.bravetomorrow.com - a Bush supporting blog.

Anyway, now that the introductions are over, I have a question for you all. I have heard President Bush talk about implementing a line-item veto that will pass judicial scrutiny. Does anyone know if it is possible to create such legislation? What was the primary objection of the courts to the first line-item veto?

Thanks!

PS. Please let me know if I did something wrong in my post. This forum system is terribly difficult to use. Too many fields to fill out IMHO!

[Dog Gone]

It really is a constitutional issue. There is no provision for vetoing PART of a bill, and with good reason. Legislation which grants the President a line item veto isn't the same thing as a constitutional amendment, which is what would be required.

And you did great with your first post, and it's not as hard as you think once you've done it a few times.

[kingu]

Your post was just fine; and I'm replying in the hopes that someone will give you a good answer. I don't quite understand the underlying legal issues for the line item veto.

[elbucko]

Bump to read replies.

[Pastnowfuturealpha]

I don't know the answer - but I'd like to say at times - line item veto makes sense.

I believe lately - last minute - behind doors - actions on bills have hurt - attaching items to bills that are for a different issue altogether


P.S. Any stock wise people out there - have question would like to email on - Thanks -

[supercat]

What I would like to see would be for the President to be able to submit a redacted version of any bill to both houses of Congress for a straight up-down vote (no requirement to clear commitees, etc.) A change of congressional rules would allow this without any need for a constitutional amendment.