From: niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent)
Subject: Re: Dangers of line item veto.  [Was: Yes to line item veto]
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 22:21:39 GMT

In article <BuMyoL.700@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> dev@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Larry Weeks) writes:
>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

Truth by blatant assertion.  Who says?  The *president* was never
intended to have the kind of power he has now.

>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

I'd call it a bad and unwieldy idea which should be vetoed, especially
since it couldn't be considered thoughtfully within the time allotted
(10 days).  I wouldn't call it unconstitutional, though.

>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."

Yes, but article 1, section 7, clause 2 says "every BILL."
And appropriations measures are BILLS.  Bills are clearly distinct from
orders,resolutions,votes, as the last sentence of your quote illustrates.

And I'd say appropriations measures are BILLS, not resolutions.

>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.

As to the original intent you were referring to, why did NO president
EVER use a line item veto if it were within his powers?  (George
Washington thought ONLY unconstitutional measures should be vetoed, not
ones on which he simply disagreed with the policy.)

-- 
David M. Nieporent   | Orioles 1992 World Series Champions
niepornt@phoenix.    | Mike Mussina 1992 AL Cy Young Winner
   princeton.edu     | Brady Anderson 1992 AL MVP
Vote Clinton/Gore '92.   Four more months!
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:45543 ca.politics:7805 ba.politics:5334