From: dev@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Larry Weeks)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.usa.constitution
Subject: Re: Dangers of line item veto.  [Was: Yes to line item veto]
Date: 15 Sep 92 20:09:56 GMT
Organization: Purdue University Computing Center

niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent) once wrote: 
> fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary) writes:
>> delisle@eskimo.celestial.com (Ben Delisle) writes:
>>
>> allow the President to seperate unrelated parts of all encompassing
>> bill. 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. (By the way, it there anything in
>
> 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.
> Otherwise the President would have a ridiculous amount of power, and
> it would take 2/3 of Congress to pass anything.

The Congress was never intended to have the kind of power it has now,
and ESPECIALLY not an entirely popular Congress. I suppose you
wouldn't call it abuse if the Congress placed one bill on the
President's desk each year, called it the 199x Congressional Act, and
said sign it or veto it. The purpose of having bills and a veto is to
diffuse government into manageable chunks. Sort of like the idea that
a Usenet split up into detailed groups makes more sense than a single
or several newsgroups where everybody talks about whatever they want.

>> 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:

You left out something there. The President does indeed have a
line-item veto of sorts. He's just too chicken to try using it. An
article from the WSJ, "Review & Outlook: A Political Test Case"
covers just this topic a little. I unfortunately don't have the
date, and the stupid online Purdue Libraries catalog doesn't have
newspapers. Below is the third clause from Article I, Section 7.

"1.7.3.  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; and before the same shall take effect, shall be
 approved by him, or, being disapproved by him, shall be re-passed by
 two-thirds of the Senate and House of Representatives, according to
 the rules and limitations prescribed in the case of a bill."

That sounds suspiciously like a line-item veto to me. Everytime the
House and Senate get together to iron out differences, the President
has the power to step in and veto their votes. I'd love to see him use
it.

Larry
--
Larry Weeks        | "Capitalism is the unequal distribution of wealth.
dev@ecn.purdue.edu |  Socialism is the equal distribution of poverty."
-------------------+--------------------------------------------------
"The truly ignorant in our society are those people who would throw
 away the parts of the Constitution they find inconvenient." 
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:45355 alt.rush-limbaugh:4777 alt.politics.elections:13083 alt.politics.clinton:5339 alt.politics.bush:5060