Quote:
Originally Posted by Platapus
I am not sure that I disagree with the SCOTUS decision in Clinton v. City of New York.
The Presentment Clause (Article I, Section 7, Clauses 2 and 3) seems pretty clear in the intent. There would have to be a real compelling benefit to take the power of creating legislation from 535 elected people and giving it to 1 elected person.
I hate the way Congress hides crap in otherwise good legislations and how they can politically blackmail the President in signing it. But I am not convinced that this "cure" won't be worse then the disease.
The entire congressional legislative process is based on compromise. One person, no matter how powerful is unable to push anything through congress without the cooperation of other congressmen/senators.
A Line Item Veto removes that.
I also believe it is in the best interests of our country that the Executive Branch of the Government not be instrumental in the constructing or packaging of legislation under the auspices of separation of powers.
In my opinion, the Line Item Veto sounds great on the surface, but does not stand up to deeper analysis.
|
I agree with this.
Here in Wisconsin, up until 2008 our governor had a form of line item veto we nicknamed the "Frankenstein Veto". This power allowed him to literally change sentences by combining parts of other sentences. He could literally take any bill and make it into something else. Thankfully, the usually moronic voters in this state stripped away that power in a constitutional amendment.
The point is that the executive should be signing or vetoing bills sent to him, as approved by congress. If he doesn't like an item in the bill he should simply send it back. That's the way of our system of government.