Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin has urged lawmakers to give President Trump a line-item veto, saying on “Fox News Sunday” that it might prevent Democrats from stacking more nondefense discretionary spending into the next must-past budget bill.
But Mnuchin’s short exchange with Fox News anchor Chris Wallace also underlined the problem with the idea — a 20-year-old Supreme Court ruling that struck down the line-item veto, finding “no provision in the Constitution that authorizes the president to enact, to amend or to repeal statutes,” after President Bill Clinton used it 82 times.
===
I myself hated the line item veto and was glad when the Supreme Court said it was unconstitutional after Clinton abused it. I'd prefer to see other tools used to keep pork spending in line, such as a law requiring Congress to pass a balanced budget in the first place.
Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin has urged lawmakers to give President Trump a line-item veto, saying on “Fox News Sunday” that it might prevent Democrats from stacking more nondefense discretionary spending into the next must-past budget bill.
But Mnuchin’s short exchange with Fox News anchor Chris Wallace also underlined the problem with the idea — a 20-year-old Supreme Court ruling that struck down the line-item veto, finding “no provision in the Constitution that authorizes the president to enact, to amend or to repeal statutes,” after President Bill Clinton used it 82 times.
===
I myself hated the line item veto and was glad when the Supreme Court said it was unconstitutional after Clinton abused it. I'd prefer to see other tools used to keep pork spending in line, such as a law requiring Congress to pass a balanced budget in the first place.
Thoughts?
What's the point of the legislature going back and fourth if the president can have this power? Breaks the balance. Better off without it.
I myself hated the line item veto and was glad when the Supreme Court said it was unconstitutional after Clinton abused it. I'd prefer to see other tools used to keep pork spending in line, such as a law requiring Congress to pass a balanced budget in the first place.
Thoughts?
I don't like that idea either. Congress has already relegated too much power to a President as it is. Probem is Congress hasn't functioned as it is required for nearly 30 years.
FOUR people came up with the OmnibusT plan... FOUR people foisted it on Congress and the President.
Our government is entirely broken and totally ignores the Constitution. Most all of the Hill have broken their oaths of office.
No law/bill should address more than one item/issue. Again this would require a constitutional amendment.
Actually, I kind of like this approach. It would slow Congress down, but at least we might have a chance they'd read the darned bills and laws before signing them.
Everyone else has good points too. We need to get back to where the three branches of government are doing their specified roles and not stepping on each other's toes all the time. Thanks for your thoughts on this. I appreciate it.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
