From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Subject: Re: Who's weakening the constitution?
Organization: Texas Instruments Inc
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 15:11:28 GMT

In <168BB7BFA.MCMASTER@LSTC2VM.stortek.com> MCMASTER@LSTC2VM.stortek.com (Jim McMaster) writes:

>In article <1992Dec11.115535.21484@mksol.dseg.ti.com>
>mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>I don't see how you can have a workable line-item veto without putting
>some requirements on the President.  With the current veto power, he
>must return the bill to Congress, with his objections in writing within
>a certain time-period, else the bill becomes law without his signature.

Seems quite simple to me.  Congress simply writes rules FOR ITSELF on
how it should deal with vetoed legislature.  The rules for the
President stay the same.  He returns the bill with a list of his
objections.  Except now, his objections CAN include 'line items'.
Congress then requires itself to resubmit the bill for approval with
the objected to line items stricken and those resubmitted before
Congress separately with a requirement for a 2/3 vote for passage. 

> 
>If he vetoes a line-item, but signs the bill into law, would he have to
>return the bill to Congress for a possible override?  

Legislatively enacted, it couldn't work like that.  But then, I doubt
it would work that way anyway.  I would expect that Congress would
have to resubmit the bill minus the offending line items.

>Under the current
>rules, no.  He has signed the bill, not vetoed it, so there is no
>provision for its going back.  I cannot imagine Congress's giving the
>President an override-proof line-item veto, can you?  There would have
>to be an override provision, which would impose requirements that the
>President return the vetoed line-items to Congress, which do not
>involve "the way Congress conducts its own business."  I do not believe
>the Congress has the power to do this.

Because you can come up with a way of implementing it that doesn't
work does not make all ways of doing it unworkable.

>>>
>>>The veto power of the President is carefully spelled out in the
>>>Constitution.  It tells exactly what he can do, exactlly how and within
>>>what time-frame.  To change this power requires a Constitutional
>>>Amendment, in my opinion.
>>
>>For Congress to grant the President extra authority over it would not,
>>in my opinion, require any such thing.  Of course, they could take
>>that power back at any time, since it was legislatively enacted.  How
>>is this different from Enhanced Recision, which the Democratic
>>leadership in Congress seems to feel is Constitutional to enact?
>>
>I am unfamiliar with the mechanics of Enhanced Recision, so cannot
>answer.  I believe when a power of any branch is as specifically
>detailed in the COnstitution as the Presidential veto power, that it
>requires a Constitutional Amendment to change it.

Enhanced recision is, in effect, a line item veto that requires only a
majority vote to override and resubmit.  In other words, Congress has
done just as I detailed above, except they are only requiring a
majority vote (instead of a 2/3 vote) for resubmission of the excised
line items.

> 
>As another example, the Constitution states very explicitly that all
>revenue measures must originate in the House.  Could not Congress give
>the Senate that power as well, since it only affects the manner in
>which Congress conducts its business?  Or would that require an
>amendment?

That would require an amendment because the wording in the
Constitution is quite explicit about the restriction on the powers of
Congress in this regard.  It is not, however, the same thing at all.

>>>>>
>>>>>It is the same with term limits.  The various state laws restricting
>>>>>terms in Congress are unconstitutional in my opinion, and will quite
>>>>>likely be thrown out as soon as they are challenged.  If we want to
>>>>>limit these terms, we need an amendment, like the one that limited
>>>>>presidents to two terms.  Personally, I would rather see that amendment
>>>>>repealed than to add another....I think term limits are a bad idea.
>>>>
>>>>Term limits are a slightly different matter.  To impose them
>>>>nationally would certainly take a Constitutional amendment.  However,
>>>>for states to do this to themselves on a state by state level would
>>>>seem to be perfectly Constitutional.  Is there anything in the
>>>>Constitution that states that additional requirements may not be
>>>>imposed by states on qualifications for office and who is allowed to
>>>>run and how?  If not, this falls under the "unspecified powers
>>>>reserved to the States, or to the People" clause, I would think.
>>>>
>>>The Constitution says I have a right to run for Congress if I am 25
>>>years old and a citizen.  Should I lose that right just because I
>>>happen to live in a state with term limits?
>>
>>Yes.  Just as the way you pick your electors for President can be
>>changed on you, depending on which state you live in and how they
>>decide to do it.
>>
>I don not get your drift.  Changing the manner in which my state picks
>electors does not deprive me of any right granted by the Constitution.
>I still get a vote, although the outcome may be different than in
>another state.

Well, let's look at this a couple of different ways, then.  First from
the elector viewpoint.  Say that the state simply says that under its
rules, no elector who will vote for a candidate who has previously
served more than X terms may be selected.  That would seem to be
within the State's power, under their contorl of how they choose
electors.  You now have de facto term limits in that state, since any
votes for a candidate for whom the process of choosing electors will
not allow an elector to be chosen for is pretty much out of the
running, no matter how many votes they get.

Now, let's go back to the Constitution for a moment.  Look at the
workding on requirments to hold office.  It sets MINIMUMS.  It does
not anywhere state that those AND ONLY THOSE qualifications may be
required.  

> 
>The Constitution states the qualifications for election to Congress
>quite clearly, as it does for elections to the Presidency.  Changing
>those qualifications for the President took a Constitutional
>Amendment.  I do not see why changing the qualifications for Congress
>should be any different,

No, it states THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS.  There is nothing that says
that states may not add others, as they please.  For example, it
specifies that House members shall be chose in the same manner as the
most numerous of the State's legislative houses.  If a state enacts
term limits on the most numerous of its legislative houses, that would
seem to put term limits in place for the corresponding Federal offices.

> 
>Consider a hypothetical situation:  Suppose, say, New York had passed
>a state law in 1938 that no person who had served two terms as
>President could appear on the ballot in that state.  Would that have
>been Constitutional?  They would not have passed any national term
>limit, merely the election procedures for their own state.  What if
>California today passed law that no one who had served a single term
>as President could appear on their ballot?  Or no one under six feet
>tall?  Again, they are merely changing election procedures.

Quite correct, and I would maintain that the can do any of those.  How
is this different from peitition requirements or any of several other
requirements levied on candidates.  You are simply adding one more
requirement.  The only thing that I can see that might cause a Federal
court to overrule this is the fact that the Presidency is not an
office for State representatives at the Federal level.  However, I
would question even that, since the Constutition explictly states that
States may define the process by which they select Electors.

> 
>>>The 14th Amendment might even come into play here.
>>
>>I'm afraid I don't see how you could construe a state enacting term
>>limits as violating the 14th Amendment.  However, an argument could
>>perhaps be made that Section 5 gives the Congress the right to
>>LEGISLATE term limits, if you consider the provisions of the 14th
>>Amendment to hold sway here.
>>
>I was thinking of the equal protection clause, denying me a right I
>would have if I lived in another state.  Perhaps it does not apply, but
>who knows what a court would say?

OH, I didn't miss that that was your INTENT.  I simply don't see it as
applying in the case of term limits.

> 
>>>Again, if we want term limits (a very bad
>>>idea in my opinion), I think they need to be imposed via the
>>>amendment process.
>>
>>I understand that, but I haven't seen convincing evidence for
>>believing that to be the case.  Keep in mind that, in general, the
>>Constitution explicitly grants powers to the central government that
>>it wanst the central government to have, and that anything else is
>>reserved to the States or the People.  Hence, anything not spelled out
>>must be a power that is so reserved.
>>
>As above, then why did Congress feel Presidential term limits required
>a Constitutional Amendment?  The issues are the same.  Qualifications
>are spelled out in exactly the same detail.

Because they wanted them in ALL THE STATES.  They didn't want a state
here and state there to do it.  In order for the Feds to impose such a
requirement on the States, essentially telling them how they may
choose Electors, they would indeed require a Constitutional amendment.
Howeer, a State may impose any requirements on itself that it wishes,
or so the wording in the Constitution seems to say.

>>>>>
>>>>>The point of my earlier post is that the person who started this thread
>>>>>was complaining about weakening the Constitution and for following the
>>>>>original intent of the framers.  Meanwhile, he proposed changes which
>>>>>did not reflect the original intent, and in a manner which further
>>>>>weakens the Constitution.
>>>>
>>>>Not at all.  That may have been your point, but it appears to me to
>>>>have missed the mark.
>>>>
>>>Your opinion, and you are entitled to it.
>>
>>True, but it all comes down to how good your reasons for holding an
>>opinion are.
>>
>And the quality of your reasons for holding an opinion are porely a
>matter of opinion.

Getting a bit silly, isn't it?

-- 
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.activism.d