Congress tries to give president line-item veto

[xchrom]

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2012/02/08/national/w064417S85.DTL

The Republican-led House is trying Wednesday to give President Barack Obama the line-item veto, a constitutionally questionable power over the purse that has been sought by both Republican and Democratic presidents.

The legislation, expected to pass, allows the president to pick out specific items in spending bills for elimination. Currently, the president must sign or veto spending bills in their entirety.

The president's choices for removal would then have to be approved by Congress.

Congress has made several attempts in the past to enact line-item veto bills, saying that surgical cuts to spending bills are useful both in removing wasteful earmarks and in reducing spending. Most state governors have some kind of line-item veto power.

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2012/02/08/national/w064417S85.DTL#ixzz1lpGpYPu4

[annabanana]

1. wait.. what?

Isn't usually the WH that is looking for this and Congress not giving it to them?

[Lawlbringer]

2. isn't line item a good thing?

Although, I'm sure it's really crappy to have that come up now AFTER the NDAA came and went.

[annabanana]

5. Well this particular law would insist that ALL

savings go directly to defect reduction (do not pass go, do not fund schools).. but still...

edit:fumblefingers

[MrCoffee]

3. They found a way around the Presentment Clause?

Sneaky representatives.

[lumberjack_jeff]

4. I don't see this as a "veto"

it's simply negotiation. "No, I won't sign this... but I will sign it if you do this."

The budget won't get implemented without congressional approval.

[hfojvt]

6. the article probably says

but didn't Congress already pass this when Clinton was President and SCOTUS found it unconstitutional? So have they answered SCOTUS's objections, or do they just want to try it with a different SCOTUS?

[EC]

7. They really think they are going to win

don't they? Well, it's already unconstitutional according to the Supremes so why bother?

[jwirr]

8. Politics. They think Obama will get blamed if he vetoes it. They may be right.