THE LINE-ITEM VETO RETURNS

NRO ^ | 25 Sep 05 | [Ramesh Ponnuru]

[.cnI redruM]

Senators Jim Talent (R., Mo.) and George Allen (R., Va.) are holding a press conference tomorrow announcing that they are going to introduce a constitutional amendment to create a line-item veto.

[GrandEagle]

Absolutely, positively nothing would get done.

And the downside is?

[.cnI redruM]

No, but you can twist it's interpretation, or sue that it's implementation usurps a different one.

[dirtboy]

But vetoing every bill with "pork" in it, would be tantamount to a filibuster. Absolutely, positively nothing would get done.

Reagan vetoed a bill because it contained 152 earmarks. Bush signed one with thousands of earmarks.

If you sign everything, you give Congress carte blanche to spend everything and then some.

[.cnI redruM]

There is a line of thinking that says a LOV is just Congress attempting to manage risk by sticking the Pres. with all the unpopular decisions.

[Txsleuth]

Good point!

[PeaRidge]

The Constitution of the Confederate States of America specifically allowed for a line item veto. Too bad it did not survive the war.

[RWR8189]

You can't launch a suit against a constitutional amendment...

I'm very pleased to see this reemerge.

[BenLurkin]

Line item veto bump.

We need it -- badly.

[P8riot]

Bush still wouldn't use it.

[IMRight]

That is in the traditional, time honored method of review.

???

They CAN'T rule the Constitution "UNconstitutional".

Amendments cannot be reviewed by the courts. If they could, the 21st Amendment would be overturned as conflicting with the 18th. (State constitutional amendments, BTW, CAN be reviewed for conflict with the federal constitution.)

They can certainly interpret the language and see things that aren't there. They do that all the time. But that's a bit different.

[RWR8189]

I believe you are talking the Highway Bill that Reagan vetoed.

He was easily over-ridden.

[Yo-Yo]

What we really need is a Constitutional Amendment that forbid the addition of "rider amendments" that are unrelated to the main purpose of the bill. That alone would stop adding pork projects to needed "veto proof" legislation.

[Dead Corpse]

He'll be the one exercising the line item veto will he not? Gotta be WILLING to veto something before the tool itself is worth a damn.

[RWR8189]

I'm glad to see Allen involved in this as well.

Just another reason for George Allen 2008.

[untenured]

Ping. DO you think it's doable?

No way. Even apart from the fiscal issues (the desire of everyone in Congress to keep bringing home the pork), it's a major change in the balance of power between Congress and the President. AFAIK no Congress has ever consented via an amendment to surrender that kind of power. Congress will not support a constitutional amendment that curbs Congressional power to this degree.

[dirtboy]

He was easily over-ridden.

At least he friggin' vetoed it. Bush hasn't ONCE vetoed a bill. And he could use his bully pulpit against Congress and make them pay a price politically for an override.

[.cnI redruM]

Maybe the next one would. I think Bush-bashers both Right and Left will find themselves totally silenced and rendered impotent by the fact that GWB's name will not be on the ballot in 2008. That's going to give the Michael Moore's and of the world a major headache, if they can't think of anything more profound than "I hate Bush! Bush is a Poopy-Head!"

[.cnI redruM]

That would very hard to define, but a noble action, worth pursuing.

[.cnI redruM]

As a proud Virginian, I couldn't agree more!

[The Old Hoosier]

Barack Obama is on board...