From: veal@utkvm1.utk.edu (David L. Veal)
Subject: Re: Presidential Line-Item Veto Power
Organization: University of Tennessee Division of Continuing Education
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 22:43:17 GMT

In article <1992Jul27.203530.19756@anasazi.com> best@anasazi.com (Mike Best) writes:

>In article <veal.133@utkvm1.utk.edu> veal@utkvm1.utk.edu (David L. Veal) writes:

>>     These are his *only* options.  He may not sign *portions* of a bill.
>>He may sign only *the whole* bill or return to *whole* bill.
>>
>Close, but not close enough.

>Unfortunately, what you have failed to take into account is that the 
>Congress has redefined a bill thus doing an "end around" the executive
>veto.  It cannot be denied that the Omnibus spending bill is somewhat
>immune from a veto (I think it is almost veto proof) due to the fact
>that a veto can result in shutting down the government.

     I certainly don't deny that this is the case.  However, I feel it
would be more appropriate to restrict the Congress than empower the 
President further.  If the problem was the President's veto power, then
I might very well like the idea of changing it into a line-item veto.
 
     But the problem is Congress, and the answer needs to deal with
Congress.

>>     The Constitution does not provide for a line-item veto.  Everything
>>else is wishful thinking.  (Not that anyone, even the President who swears
>>to defend the damn thing, bothers to read it.  It's all "elastic clauses"
>>and "general welfare" clauses.  If that's a recipe for limited government 
>>I'd hate to see an unlimited one...)
>>
>But it does describe a limited government, and you need to understand what
>the Founders meant by their words (as described by themselves in documents
>such as the Federalist Papers) to fully appreciate it.  If you examine the
>first 10 ammendments you will notice that they are mostly negations of
>Federal power.  This is what the States feared, a strong central government
>which would dominate them (Hmm, seems like it happened in spite of the
>Founders - score one for the Statist Liberals).

>The idea is to strike a balance between a government which can protect
>individual rights without getting out of balance and harming these rights.
>The Constitution is intended to be a living document which allows us to
>govern ourselves, to make laws to suit the times.  This is one reason
>why a constitutional right to an abortion is considered imaginary, the 
>proper course is to make legislation allowing it. 

     We must confine ourselves to what the Constitution *says* as oppose
to what it *should* say.  Where the Constitution is lacking, it should
be amended.  "Interpreting" a line-item veto because "it is necessary"
defeats the purpose of writing the law down in the first place.

>Mike Best
>{mcdphx|asuvax}!anasaz!best

===========================================================================
|David Veal  PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu  University of Tennessee             |  
|                                     Division of Continuing Education    |
| Statistics are any data which can be twisted to support your posititon  | 
===========================================================================

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections