- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Should line item veto be revisited?
Posted on 10/22/25 at 8:17 pm
Posted on 10/22/25 at 8:17 pm
This was attempted during the Clinton administration as a tool to potentially reduce spending and ultimately didn't come to fruition. This is one issue where I don't mind expanding executive power.
10
Posted on 10/22/25 at 8:29 pm to Powerman
I'm all for it. Let the President separate the wheat from the chaff then make these assholes vote for the bullshite when its not hidden in a 1500 page bill.
Posted on 10/22/25 at 8:30 pm to Onyx Aggie
Doesn’t congress actually have to put out a fiscal year budget to do this? They haven’t put out an actual budget in a fricking arse long time.
Posted on 10/22/25 at 8:30 pm to Powerman
Gonna need a constitutional amendment. Congress’ power of the purse is neutered if the President can come behind with a line item veto.
Posted on 10/22/25 at 8:33 pm to Powerman
Needs a constitutional amendment
Posted on 10/22/25 at 8:34 pm to boosiebadazz
quote:
Gonna need a constitutional amendment. Congress’ power of the purse is neutered if the President can come behind with a line item veto.
Not necessarily... they can always vote to override the veto, right?
Posted on 10/22/25 at 8:36 pm to Powerman
SCOTUS already ruled on it.
Posted on 10/22/25 at 8:36 pm to CrotchetyCowboy
quote:
Doesn’t congress actually have to put out a fiscal year budget to do this? They haven’t put out an actual budget in a fricking arse long time.
I’m pretty sure Congress hasn’t turned in a budget since 1996/1997ish.
Posted on 10/22/25 at 8:38 pm to Powerman
It’s great in theory, but I think it would just lead to even less things passed by Congress, which is almost impossible at this point.
Posted on 10/22/25 at 8:39 pm to Major Dutch Schaefer
quote:
SCOTUS already ruled on it.
Yep. Clinton got it passed through Congress and SCOTUS shut it down.
Posted on 10/22/25 at 8:43 pm to SallysHuman
quote:
Not necessarily... they can always vote to override the veto, right?
No. The President can’t amend laws and if he alters a bill and signs it into a law, he has done exactly that.
Posted on 10/22/25 at 8:43 pm to SallysHuman
LINK
6-3 but look at the makeup on the panel. Thomas and Scalia on opposite sides and Thomas with Stevens, Souter and Ginsburg in the majority. Probably didn’t see that makeup very often.
6-3 but look at the makeup on the panel. Thomas and Scalia on opposite sides and Thomas with Stevens, Souter and Ginsburg in the majority. Probably didn’t see that makeup very often.
This post was edited on 10/22/25 at 8:45 pm
Posted on 10/22/25 at 9:56 pm to Powerman
Absolutely not. No president should have that power and it's sad to see idiot groupies cheer for it when the right person is for it. I doubt any of them wanted Clinton to have it.
Posted on 10/22/25 at 11:49 pm to Powerman
Posted on 10/23/25 at 7:01 am to riverdiver
quote:congressional budget proposals are non-binding and don't even go to the executive for signature. Budget reconciliation is binding and requires presidential signature. They only require a simple majority in the Senate. Congressional budget reconciliation H.R.1 was passed this year (also know as the BBB).
I’m pretty sure Congress hasn’t turned in a budget since 1996/1997ish.
None of this funds the goverment. There are 12 spending bills that originated in the house that actually fund the goverment. These are never passed on time. Currently, 4 have passed the house, none have passed the Senate. Unlike budget reconciliation, these require 60 votes which is why they are rarely passed on time and CRs are used to fund the goverment until agreements can be reached on each spending bill.
Posted on 10/23/25 at 7:10 am to Powerman
quote:
Should line item veto be revisited?
In my opinion - and I think this is the consensus constitutional read - presidents get the right to sign bills into law not pull out a red pen and strike through items in a bill thus creating a new one then signing it into law.
This post was edited on 10/23/25 at 7:10 am
Posted on 10/23/25 at 7:17 am to Powerman
Absolutely
Posted on 10/23/25 at 7:26 am to boosiebadazz
quote:
Congress’ power of the purse is neutered if the President can come behind with a line item veto.
I think the rationale behind that is to keep the president from spending on anything not authorized by congress.
I am not aware that the POTUS is required to spend everything congress OKs. It should work in both ways.
Posted on 10/23/25 at 7:36 am to Powerman
The fundamental question is how strong do you think the executive branch should be?
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News