Roll Call: Who supports a line item veto for the POTUS on appropriations?

It's going to take a Constitutional Amendment

quote:

---

Let’s get some opinions on this.

---

Well if the Omnibus bill is just an aggregation of the 12 subcommittees that would normally have their own seperate appropriations bills then maybe he should be able to veto those 12 specific areas as if they're seperate bills like intended.

I know one person who does LINK

quote:

---

Yeah, I've always been for line-item

---

It just seems like a solution that creates a different set of problems.

There has to be some middle ground and some parameters for it. One is too big general and the other is too small specific and both seem ripe for abuse.

I dont because it’ll be abused and bite us in the arse bigly next time a Dem gets the White House

quote:

---

It's going to take a Constitutional Amendment

---

Maybe...

Absolutely not. The Line Item Veto makes Louisiana's governor a dictator. I can only imagine how much more powerful the executive would be with that kind of weapon at his disposal. Incumbents would never lose. The legislative branch has already ceded far too much power to the executive as it is.

A much better way to fix the problem of omnibus bills would be to create a mirror of Louisiana's germaneness and one-object rules (Louisiana State Constitution of 1974: Article III, section 15) at the federal level. This could be done by statute if constrcted very very carefully to create an actionable private right of action do have courts declare offending laws declared null even after they've been signed into law. Obviously, the best way would be to use a Constitutional Amendment.

Louisiana's rules require every bill to only have one object, and it has to be fairly limited. Our bills are typically very short, direct, and to the point. The purpose was to prevent omnibus bills. The germaneness rule prevents off the wall amendments from being added after the fact. The amendments have to be both germane to the bill as it was when first introduced AND as it is when the amendment was introduced. Because the restrictions are constitutional, plaintiffs "injured" by a legislative act can sue in state court and plead that the act itself is unconstitutional due to violating one or both of those requirements.If it is, the court will strike it down.

The only bills those requirements are not enforced on are budgets and general appropriations bills. This omnibus bill attempts to be both, but it's actually neither.

The Supreme Court already declared it unconstitutional when Clinton tried to get it. Its a bad idea anyway. The minority party would never get anything accomplished. Just imagine the damage a full on socialist president would do with it.