s/o - line item veto

[TheManWithAUsername]

Someone just mentioned earmarks. I didn't follow that drama much back in the day. I understand that there are disincentives to vote for it at any particular point, but why not, say, have it begin in 20 years?

Is there an argument against it more sophisticated than, "I want to keep getting elected by getting my constituents stuff?"

[jsteele]

What are you asking about, earmarks or the line item veto?

[TheManWithAUsername]

Sorry - is there any more argument against the line-item veto as a tool for stopping earmarks] other than the self-interest of established representatives?

[jsteele]

I think the line item veto, and so-called "signing statements" have the effect of corrupting legislative intent. It is the role of the Congress to create legislation. The President signs it or doesn't sign it. It is not his role to modify it. If the President is unable to interpret parts of a bill he has been asked to sign, he can veto it or leave the interpretation to the courts. With signing statements, Congress votes on one thing, and then the President says "I am signing this into law, but am going to interpret it as follows...". I do not believe that is constitutional. The line item veto goes a bit further. Not only would the President be inserting himself directly into the legislative process, but he might make the legislative process even more difficult. Legislation is almost always developed by deal-making. One member will agree to something in return for something else. There is nothing wrong with that. Remember that a great number such deals -- including the creation of a bicameral legislature -- were essential to the foundation of our government. Such deals would be much more difficult if there was a concern that the President might veto the quid pro quo that one side was expecting.

[Anonymous]

Let me put the in parent terms.

You (the law giver) say "Clean your room and you can have dessert. "

Your child (the executive) takes out a crayon and strikes "Clean your room and" and heads straight for the cake.

A bill cannot be split up. It obtains a series of tradeoffs. Some are bad tradeoffs to get a vote. But others are not.

[takoma]

Point of information: I just Googled s/o and found nothing that seemed to fit. What does it mean in this context?

[jsteele]

takoma wrote:Point of information: I just Googled s/o and found nothing that seemed to fit. What does it mean in this context?

"Spin Off". He meant that he is spinning off this discussing from another one.

Or, if his family life is like mine, he means that his significant other has a line item veto over him.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

takoma wrote:Point of information: I just Googled s/o and found nothing that seemed to fit. What does it mean in this context?

"Spin Off". He meant that he is spinning off this discussing from another one.

Or, if his family life is like mine, he means that his significant other has a line item veto over him.

My wife controls all three branches of government. Sometimes I try to filibuster, but she votes to end debate and then I'm toast.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

takoma wrote:Point of information: I just Googled s/o and found nothing that seemed to fit. What does it mean in this context?

"Spin Off". He meant that he is spinning off this discussing from another one.

Or, if his family life is like mine, he means that his significant other has a line item veto over him.

My wife controls all three branches of government. Sometimes I try to filibuster, but she votes to end debate and then I'm toast.

As it should be - or so I keep reminding my DH

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:I think the line item veto, and so-called "signing statements" have the effect of corrupting legislative intent. It is the role of the Congress to create legislation. The President signs it or doesn't sign it. It is not his role to modify it. If the President is unable to interpret parts of a bill he has been asked to sign, he can veto it or leave the interpretation to the courts. With signing statements, Congress votes on one thing, and then the President says "I am signing this into law, but am going to interpret it as follows...". I do not believe that is constitutional. The line item veto goes a bit further. Not only would the President be inserting himself directly into the legislative process, but he might make the legislative process even more difficult. Legislation is almost always developed by deal-making. One member will agree to something in return for something else. There is nothing wrong with that. Remember that a great number such deals -- including the creation of a bicameral legislature -- were essential to the foundation of our government. Such deals would be much more difficult if there was a concern that the President might veto the quid pro quo that one side was expecting.

I don't see there something sacrosanct about the president not legislating. (I understand there are issues of the interpretation of the constitution as it exists, of course.) If Congress is failing in this regard, I'm happy to spread the power if that will help.

The negotiation issue is different. That is tricky. I wonder if the veto could be limited in some way - actually, wasn't that the idea? - only specific expenditures, or something?

Either way, I might prefer it. As things are, it's not just an issue of deal-making; it's the ability to hold bills hostage to extort pork.

Anyway, thanks for the answer.

[TheManWithAUsername]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:I think the line item veto, and so-called "signing statements" have the effect of corrupting legislative intent. It is the role of the Congress to create legislation. The President signs it or doesn't sign it. It is not his role to modify it. If the President is unable to interpret parts of a bill he has been asked to sign, he can veto it or leave the interpretation to the courts. With signing statements, Congress votes on one thing, and then the President says "I am signing this into law, but am going to interpret it as follows...". I do not believe that is constitutional. The line item veto goes a bit further. Not only would the President be inserting himself directly into the legislative process, but he might make the legislative process even more difficult. Legislation is almost always developed by deal-making. One member will agree to something in return for something else. There is nothing wrong with that. Remember that a great number such deals -- including the creation of a bicameral legislature -- were essential to the foundation of our government. Such deals would be much more difficult if there was a concern that the President might veto the quid pro quo that one side was expecting.

I don't see there something sacrosanct about the president not legislating. (I understand there are issues of the interpretation of the constitution as it exists, of course.) If Congress is failing in this regard, I'm happy to spread the power if that will help.

The negotiation issue is different. That is tricky. I wonder if the veto could be limited in some way - actually, wasn't that the idea? - only specific expenditures, or something?

Either way, I might prefer it. As things are, it's not just an issue of deal-making; it's the ability to hold bills hostage to extort pork.

Anyway, thanks for the answer.

Oops - that was me, obviously.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:I think the line item veto, and so-called "signing statements" have the effect of corrupting legislative intent. It is the role of the Congress to create legislation. The President signs it or doesn't sign it. It is not his role to modify it. If the President is unable to interpret parts of a bill he has been asked to sign, he can veto it or leave the interpretation to the courts. With signing statements, Congress votes on one thing, and then the President says "I am signing this into law, but am going to interpret it as follows...". I do not believe that is constitutional. The line item veto goes a bit further. Not only would the President be inserting himself directly into the legislative process, but he might make the legislative process even more difficult. Legislation is almost always developed by deal-making. One member will agree to something in return for something else. There is nothing wrong with that. Remember that a great number such deals -- including the creation of a bicameral legislature -- were essential to the foundation of our government. Such deals would be much more difficult if there was a concern that the President might veto the quid pro quo that one side was expecting.

I don't see there something sacrosanct about the president not legislating. (I understand there are issues of the interpretation of the constitution as it exists, of course.) If Congress is failing in this regard, I'm happy to spread the power if that will help.

The negotiation issue is different. That is tricky. I wonder if the veto could be limited in some way - actually, wasn't that the idea? - only specific expenditures, or something?

Either way, I might prefer it. As things are, it's not just an issue of deal-making; it's the ability to hold bills hostage to extort pork.

Anyway, thanks for the answer.

Our founders believed that certain principles were required to restrain abuse of power. One of those principles was separation of powers. If you decide to "spread the power" in a time of ineffective congress, you may end up paying for it in a time of a power-hungry president.

Power is too tempting, and constitutional checks and balances are in my opinion critical to our democracy. We don't need a Putin.

[TheManWithAUsername]

Anonymous wrote:Our founders believed that certain principles were required to restrain abuse of power. One of those principles was separation of powers. If you decide to "spread the power" in a time of ineffective congress, you may end up paying for it in a time of a power-hungry president.

Power is too tempting, and constitutional checks and balances are in my opinion critical to our democracy. We don't need a Putin.

The question of where to draw those lines is somewhat arbitrary. As you may know, early on there was some question as to whether the Supremes could invalidate a law as unconstitutional. Many at the time saw that as a significant power grab.

The fact that the founders drew lines in particular places doesn't mean that much to me. I don't revere them, and they couldn't predict exactly where things have gone. One reason to give the founders the benefit of the doubt is that the government has lasted this long, but we've obviously found it necessary to correct several things since the founding.

[Anonymous]

The line item veto is probably unconstitutional. It's a hard question but I don't think it's a close call.

The Office of Legal Counsel in the Department of Justice has, across administrations, found it unconstitutional. And this is an office that supports the use of signing statements, just to put their view in context with Jeff's point.

[Anonymous]

TheManWithAUsername wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Our founders believed that certain principles were required to restrain abuse of power. One of those principles was separation of powers. If you decide to "spread the power" in a time of ineffective congress, you may end up paying for it in a time of a power-hungry president.

Power is too tempting, and constitutional checks and balances are in my opinion critical to our democracy. We don't need a Putin.

The question of where to draw those lines is somewhat arbitrary. As you may know, early on there was some question as to whether the Supremes could invalidate a law as unconstitutional. Many at the time saw that as a significant power grab.

The fact that the founders drew lines in particular places doesn't mean that much to me. I don't revere them, and they couldn't predict exactly where things have gone. One reason to give the founders the benefit of the doubt is that the government has lasted this long, but we've obviously found it necessary to correct several things since the founding.

The line between legislation, execution, and adjudication is as clear as separating red, green, and blue. They are three functions of the law that are clear as day. Marbury vs. Madison may have contained a challenge but it was unsuccessful. And if you read your Federalist Papers and Anti-Federalist papers alike you can see that judicial review had near unanimous support at the time of the drafting of the constitution. In fact, the court actually exercised the right of judicial review as far back as 1796, but in that case the court determined the law to be constitutional so no one remembers the case.

The lesson of the founders in drafting the constitution is that separation of powers is not arbitrary, and it should not be subject to the politics or personalities of the day. Institutions must be created with solid foundations that are resistant to ebbs and flows of political life. If you don't get this, read the Federalist Papers.