At best it would still be 5-4 against, still needing stevens to step down.
If Bush had this power he could reject a lot of the earmarks like the bridge in alaska.
Clinton's two ultra liberal supreme court picks hurt bush bad here. But Clinton will never get any blame.
Not the Constitution.
Two years later, the Supreme Court declared the law unconstitutional because it violated the principle that Congress, and not the executive branch, holds the power of the purse.
Uhhhhhhhhhhhh, Bush has never vetoed a bill. Not even the unconstitutional blather of CFR.
Ha ha ha. What for? He has had plenty of opportunities to apply a veto and didn't use it. Why now? What a joke. Just an excuse by him for all the spending.
While Carter was our most incompetent President, Gerry Ford was the dumbest ... and he left John Paul Stevens as a lasting reminder.
The election of '76 - hold your nose and vote for Ford.
The horse is already out of the barn on spending. Neither party will take it seriously, nor should they. The responsibility is on congress to put forth reasonble legislation in the first place, or a president to veto the whole mess if it isn't.
You don't think Alito and Roberts would reject it?
You ask for strict constructionists, that's what you get.
How about a retroactive veto so Bush can roll back all the stupid stuff like the drug program that was not needed and the gazillion dollars to Africa and other countries?
If he's not proposing an amendment, then he's just wasting time. What's the point?
One way that might get this thing to pass constitutional muster would be to give the President the power to line item veto something out of a bill and then send the bill directly back to congress for a fair up or down vote. No committee reviews, no chances for poison pills, no modifications by members of congress to kill the bill.
Give debate on the floor of each house for the modified bill (no filibusters) and then give the bill a stright up or down majority rules vote. After that send the bill back to the President to sign. Ultimately Congress would still have the final say on any spending and keep the balence of power in Congress for spending measures.
What something like this could do is bring some of the waistful spending out in the open and force politicians to explain some of these pork barrel projects (or let them die in the revote.)
Great. Let's make the executive even *more* powerful.
FYI
Good, but didn't he already reject this as a process?
I think you would have more credibility in seeking a line-item veto if you had actually used your Constitutional veto powers a few times beforehand.