Tell your people in Congress! NO to Bush having a Line-Item Veto!

[ck4829]

A conservative perennial is back in season in the Senate, as GOP Sens. Judd Gregg (N.H.) and Jim DeMint (S.C.) plan a bid to restore the presidential line-item veto as part of the lobbying and ethics bill on the floor this week.

While Democrats underline their commitment to reform by touting gift and travel bans, Gregg and DeMint aim to repair their party’s bruised reputation for fiscal responsibility by billing line-item as a means to clamp down on earmarks. The House last year passed a line-item measure similar to the Senate amendment with 35 Democratic votes, but lingering concerns about the constitutionality of line-item make this week’s effort an uphill battle.

President Bush consistently has prioritized the line-item veto, including it in several budget requests and asking for the authority anew in a speech last week focused on eliminating wasteful spending. White House budget chief Rob Portman, a close ally of DeMint’s since their years together in the House, has also worked the Hill promoting the line-item bill since his appointment last year.

http://www.thehill.com/thehill/export/TheHill/News/Frontpage/010907/gregg.html

[AndyA]

1. It wouldn't do me a bit of good.

I have Jim Inhofe, who has his nose so far up Bush's butt he can tell what Bush had for dinner last night.

God, how I want representation for a change. It's futile to even call Inhofe's office. They're rude, snippy, and lie to you to get you off the phone. I thought it would be worth it to just keep calling, for the sheer joy of irritating them, but I think it was irritating me more than them.

But for those of you who actually have a Senator, yes, please do call. Bush must not have the ability to pick and choose as he sees fit. (At least, lets limit it to signing statements at this point...)

[SteppingRazor]

2. Well, let's look at in the broader sense ...

which would not be "no to Bush having the line-item veto" but "no to the president having the line-item veto."

I think the line-item veto could very well be a violation of the separation of powers, but that's for the courts to decide, no?

Meanwhile, I think it's pretty obvious that it would have a definite effect on curbing earmark expenditures, and thus getting our budget balanced. If we had a line-item veto, wouldn't we avoid asinine, pork-barrel spending such as the infamous Bridge to Nowhere of Rep. Don Young (R-Greedhead)?

[BadgerKid]

4. LIV previously unconstitutional

The President of the United States was briefly granted this power by the Line Item Veto Act of 1996, passed by Congress in order to control "pork barrel spending" that favors a particular region rather than the nation as a whole. The line-item veto was used 11 times to strike 82 items from the federal budget<2> <3> by President Bill Clinton.

However, U.S. District Court Judge Thomas F. Hogan decided on February 12, 1998, that unilateral amendment or repeal of only parts of statutes violated the U.S. Constitution. This ruling was subsequently affirmed on June 25, 1998, by a 6-3 decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case Clinton v. City of New York.

A constitutional amendment to give the President line item veto power has been considered periodically since the Court ruled the 1996 Act unconstitutional.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Line_item_veto

[SteppingRazor]

5. Well, there ya go. Question answered. n/t

[Warren DeMontague]

3. I don't even think he should be getting free Presidential pens, anymore. nt

[Greeby]

6. Just a more legal version of the signing statements

:eyes: