Who here is in support of line item veto powers for the President?

Nope. Too much power.

It's worked out so well in Louisiana...



Free market capitalist who supports the 2nd and the govt staying the frick out of anything not expressly mentioned in the Constitution.

Whatever political party that is.

I don't support.

That said, I'd sure love to figure out a way to force it to be impossible to include completely unrelated shite in bills.

I mean, you'd think just common decency would prevent it. But yeah...…….not a thing I guess.

Support.

It works at the state level (for both sides), and if Congress wanted to override a veto it can.

Republican.

I'm hugely ignorant of the topic but I understand the basic premise of it.

Can someone explain to me the downfalls of line-item veto? It seems to me this would fit perfectly fine within the whole concept of checks-and-balances.

If congress passes a bill, the president has the right to veto it. I think we can all agree on that. How is line-item changing it?

If the president is truly in the wrong congress still has the option of veto-override with super majority, correct?

I don't see how line-item veto is granting a president any more power than they already have. I am sure I am missing something simple because there is a lot of folks who are adamantly against it.

EDIT: I can see an argument that w/out line-item veto, congress has too much power. They can literally piggyback anything in a bill that has items that absolutely cannot be veto'd and the president really can't do anything about it.

Totally against it.

quote:

---

the ability of politicians and lawyers to expand the definition of "directly related" would likely make your head spin.

---

Let them try...see how the people react.
"Directly" has a definition.

Mute point, SCOTUS has spoken.

Historically, I've been for it.

Seeing how someone like Hussein ran roughshod over the Constitution, I worry what the next Democrat POTUS will attempt to get away with.

As a compromise, I'd sooner see a requirement that any riders attached to a bill be proven relevant to the host bill. (e.g. There shouldn't be pork spending to build a bridge in Kansas inserted into a telecom infrastructure spending bill).

quote:

---

Let them try...see how the people react. "Directly" has a definition.

---

I mean, I get what you're saying.

But, if you think the leftist voters are going to be deterred by correct use of the English language, you haven't been watching them very closely.

They'll simply define something as "related". All their media sycophants will parrot it. Their judges will agree with it. And, they'll portray anyone who can't see how obviously related something is as being "incapable of 'nuanced' thinking".

Oh, and, this will ONLY work in one direction.

They, and their judges, and the media, will immediately rediscover the meaning of the word "directly' when Republicans are in power.