From: PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal)
Subject: Re: Dangers of line item veto.  [Was: Yes to line item veto]
Organization: The University of Tennessee, Knoxville
Date: Wed, 16 Sep 1992 00:44:25 GMT

In article <1992Sep13.233935.8564@ucsu.Colorado.EDU>
fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary) writes:

>
>In article <1992Sep13.211111.29449@Princeton.EDU> niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.ED (David Marc Nieporent) writes:
>>>...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.)

     Actually you're both right, just quoting two different parts of
the text.  The first is from Section 7, paragraph two, and the other
from paragraph three.  (Although the one from paragraph has a bunch
of abbreviations.)

     I don't see how paragraph three would allow a line-item
veto, since the President returning the bill is dealt with in the
previous paragraph, although it *could* be considered to give him
veto power on the votes to *include* the amendments he objects to
in the first place.

========================================================================
| David Veal  PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu                                  |
|             University of Tennessee Division of Continuing Education |
========================================================================