Forums | MacLife

The line item veto has to be one of the worst ideas out there.

Bills that are passed are the result of hard compromises. When Congress passes a bill, it should be able to expect that the entire thing will be passed into law, not just select portions. Just because a member of congress votes for a bill, doesn't mean he would have voted for it if the text was just slightly different.

Stripping one provision from a bill can cause it to have a completely different affect than it would have had otherwise.

Suppose Congress passes a bill to increase welfare benefits in exchange for stricter time limits on those benefits, as a compromise between liberals and conservatives.

If the president were to line-item veto the part about time limits, he'd be turning it into a welfare increase. If the president were to veto the part about increased benefits, he'd be turning it into a welfare cut.

Either way, a large number of the people who voted for the bill get screwed, having voted for a law that in its final version they would have never supported.

I'm sick of people whining about how difficult it is for the president to veto "Cute Puppies for Blind Orphans Act of 2007." Practically ever president besides the current one managed to veto tons of bills, most of them with positive sounding names.

Forcing presidents to release a statement to explain why they vetoed a bill is a lot better than allowing them free reign to pull bait and switches on Congress and distort the intent of laws that they passed.

Last edited by after-life (2007-05-10 4:06 pm)

bratboy wrote:

I agree....I think a line-item veto is a bad idea, and probably violates the separation of powers.

The Supreme Court thinks so too.

Hilarious fact: the GOP wanted the line-item veto for years, but only got it when Clinton was in office - and promptly started whining.