From: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: Dangers of line item veto.  [Was: Yes to line item veto]
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1992 23:39:35 GMT

In article <1992Sep13.211111.29449@Princeton.EDU> niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent) writes:
>While this isn't the *meaning* of line-item veto, I wouldn't put it past
>Bush and his statist judges to attempt to redefine it this way.

Let's try to be fair: Bush isn't the only untrust-worthy or statist
presidential candidate...

>>...It isn't at all uncommon for Congress to dodge a Presidential
>>veto, by sticking together totally unrelated items, one of which the
>>Presdient opposes and one which he suppports. A line-item veto is
>>intended to curb this abuse...

>Why do you call it *abuse*?  It's not an abuse, it's a perfectly valid
>exertion of Congressional powers.  Part of checks and balances.

No, it is the reverse: The President's veto is a part of the checks
and balances on Congress. Combining legislation to avoid a veto is
an abuse, since it is an effort to side-step this check.

>Otherwise the President would have a ridiculous amount of power, and it
>would take 2/3 of Congress to pass anything.

I don't see what is wrong with needing a 2/3 vote to pass additional
laws, if the other elected branch of government is strongly opposed:
The real harm is done by too many laws, not too few.

Further, the President doesn't have all that much power: He can't
do anything (in terms of domestic government) except enforce laws
passed by Congress, and his ability to do so depends on Congress
funding his executive agencies. The only major problem comes from
the _number_ of laws the President is supposed to enforce: There
are so many, that the President can do almost anything and be 
enforcing _some_ law. But again, this is caused by Congress passing
to many laws; restrictions on lawmaking would seem like a 
good idea.

>>the Constitution to suggets the President does not, currently,
>>have this power?) 

>Well, there tain't anything in there to suggest he does.

>Article I, Section 7:
>	Every bill which shall have passed the HoR and Senate, shall,
>before it becomes law, be presented to the president of the US; if he
>approve, he shall sign it, but if not, he shall return it, with his
>objections, to the house in which it shall have originated...

>Doesn't seem to be anything suggested he gets to keep part of a bill only.

This quote is both incorrect and misleading:

Article One, Section Seven, clause three actually reads:

"Every Order, Resolution, or Vote to which the Concurrence of the Senate
and House of Representatives may be necessary (except on a question of
Adjournment) shall be presented to the President of the United States..."

While "Every Bill" (from your inaccurate quote) may not imply a 
line-item veto, "Every Order, Resolution, or Vote" could very well.

(By the way, please post only direct quotations of the Constitution:
the entire object of Constitutional debate is to deceide between
differing interpertations of the text of the Constitution. Stating your
interpertation, by means of paraphrasing the actual text, is 
misleading and doesn't contribute to the discussion.)

                                                   Frank Crary
                                                   CU Boulder

Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:44871 ca.politics:7640 ba.politics:5197 soc.motss:38831 ba.motss:1582