From: MCMASTER@LSTC2VM.stortek.com (Jim McMaster)
Subject: Re: Who's weakening the constitution?
Organization: StorageTek SW Engineering
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 15:48:57 GMT

In article <1992Dec11.115535.21484@mksol.dseg.ti.com>
mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
 
>In <168B98908.MCMASTER@LSTC2VM.stortek.com> MCMASTER@LSTC2VM.stortek.com (Jim McMaster) writes:
>
>>In article <1992Dec9.150727.18525@mksol.dseg.ti.com>
>>mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>>
>>>In <168B68113.MCMASTER@LSTC2VM.stortek.com> MCMASTER@LSTC2VM.stortek.com (Jim McMaster) writes:
>>>
>>>>In article <1992Dec7.042346.18738@mksol.dseg.ti.com>
>>>>mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>>>>
>>>>                                             The founding fathers
>>>>explicitly gave veto power to the executive, and did not make it of the
>>>>line-item variety.  If we want to change that, we need an amendment in
>>>>order to follow the original intent.
>>>
>>>Well, no, not really.  Congress is empowered to make all laws about
>>>how it does its own business.  If it wished to pass a law restricting
>>>or changing the process by which laws become enacted, that is its
>>>right.  I think this could probably be done without a Constitutional
>>>amendment.  I also think that you are somewhat out of context with the
>>>assertion that George Bush was calling for Congress to do this by
>>>legislation.  In any case, does 'enhanced recision' violate the
>>>Constitution?  I don't think so, because it's another case of Congress
>>>making laws about how it does its own business and imposing
>>>restrictions on itself.
>>>
>>Congress can make rules for itself, but the line-item veto also imposes
>>requirements on the President.  Presumably there will be some rules
>>concerning time-limits within which he must veto line-items.  Congress
>>has no authority to pass such rules.
>
>A line-item veto need impose no such requirements.  Simply leave the
>requirements for time (including the bill becoming law if the
>President doesn't return it to Congress, whether he signs it or not)
>as described in the Constitution.  In effect, this is Congress
>allowing the Executive to have a power that 'normally' belongs to
>Congress.  As such, this is Congress making rules as to how IT does
>business, and I think it would be allowable.
>
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.
 
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?  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.
>>
>>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.
 
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?
>>>>
>>>>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.
 
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,
 
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.
 
>>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?
 
>>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.
>>>>
>>>>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.
>--
>Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.
 
Jim McMaster
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,tx.politics