WHY a line-item veto now?

[Clio the Leo]

Help this dumb girl out. Obviously I understand this is a good thing for US.

But why do McCain and "Fine Gold" want to give a line-item veto to a President who is in the opposition party? I realize it would ONLY be used for earmarks and Congress could still reject any veto but I still dont understand how it benefits them at this time? Why give ANY more power to a member of the opposition? Is it to keep from looking like hypocrites? Is it to set him up? "See! We gave him the power to reject earmarks and he's not doing it!!! He's breaking his campaign promise!"

What am I missing here?

http://www.politico.com/politico44/perm/0309/test_drive_48ce4df5-f169-4ff0-bf1c-fcfd39239747.html

[Jennicut]

1. Feingold has always been a good guy. McLame just wants in on any pretending of reforming government

McLame attached himself to Russ F. when he came up with campaign finance reform legislation way way back. McLame is not serious about reforming anything. Remember that McCain always wants to be seen as a "maverick".

[global1]

2. I'm Curious Too - But Feingold Is A Dem......

I thought it odd the other day when I heard McCain go off on Obama on the earmarks with his "This is change" comment. Then today I wake up to a McCain statement that he, Feingold and Rep Ryan will be working on stopping these 'earmarks' and going so far as calling them 'corruption' and stating that several former members of Congress are in jail because of this.

Was a deal worked out between Obama and McCain - to put McCain in this position to help Obama get line-item veto power?

I think it is good if it works both ways (Repug & Dem) to stop the wasteful spending just to get support to pass a bill.

I'm curious as to others thoughts on this as well.

[Clio the Leo]

4. a ha! I knew I was missing something major....

.... the things you learn on DU. :-)

Thank you.

As for your theory .... I'm down for anything that describes the President as a master strategist .... seems plausable to me.

[Clio the Leo]

8. And the President just praised McCain.....

.... in his statement this morning hmmmm .... you may be on to something.

[Bucky]

3. It's a budget trimming expedient. But that said, it's a bad idea.

I'm a history teacher, so I look these things from a long term perspective. One reason Bush was able to fuck up the country so thoroughly was that we have too much power concentrated into the executive branch of goverment. We have an unbalanced government. As a result (and as a cause), we have a legislative branch of government that acts increasing less responsible. Fat, bloated budgets, stupid poseur laws, reckless abuse of the Constitutional amendment process, knee jerk impeachment threats from the Republicans and timid oversight from the Democrats...

The line item veto is a further distortion of the principle of a balance of powers. By handing a budget scalpel to the executive branch, we'd give license to the Congress to write increasingly irresponsible budgets. We'd place yet more authority for running the government responsibly into the hands of a single person--the president. That's inherently less democratic (small d). It's a huge wager that future presidents will all act responsibly. History does not favor that gamble.

If issues like abortion rights, controlling corporate welfare, funding education, or protecting the rights of unemployed workers matter to you, then you should oppose the line item veto. It is a direct attack on republican government and stable democracy. It's a step toward monarchy. It's a bad idea.

[Jennicut]

7. Didn't Clinton have use of the line item veto?

I wonder who much he ended up using it.

[Bucky]

14. He thought it was implied in the Constitution. The Scotus shot him down.

The Constitution is clear, however. The president can veto whole bills, but not get down into the language of particular bills and excise whatever he doesn't like. It would be tantamount to him writing the legislation, which, as the executor of the laws, he really shouldn't be allowed to do.

Think of all the crap a president could do just by "vetoing" the word not from a bill.

[AnneD]

9. I am with you.....

the gov here in Texas is VERY weak. the one power we give him is a line item veto and he wrecks enough havoc with just that. My answer is no. The GOP has wanted this every since Reagan. I'd vote no just for that reason alone.

And no, We do not have line item for the president and Clinton never used it. I don't know about Arkansas.

[WinkyDink]

5. It's a bad idea. Because we WILL have another Republican President eventually.

And you really should have known Russ Feingold is a Democrat.

[tritsofme]

6. Republicans have supported line item veto efforts under Dem and GOP administrations.

After Newt's crew took over in 1994, they passed and Clinton signed a line item veto law that was eventually struck down by the SCOTUS.

Democrats have generally opposed, because um, its more than likely an unconstitutional usurpation of congressional power.

[tekisui]

10. It doesn't stand up to the Constitution. It is a futile effort.

I don't know why they are even trying.

[Orsino]

13. I don't see much point.

...McCain and Feingold have designed their legislation so Congress still has final approval over the presidential line item vetoes, a provision designed to get around the premise that this violates the checks and balances in the Constitution.

More give and take, I guess? I can see why a Democratic president would like a Dem-majority Congress to rubber-stamp his cuts, but it still doesn't pass the constitutional smell test. Perhaps McCain is in it for the extra chances for Republican filibusters? :shrug:

[hugo_from_TN]

11. Because they think it is the right thing to do?

Can't you even consider that?

[Bluenorthwest]

12. Russ Feingold is a Democratic Senator

Line item veto has been ruled unconstitutional, as it should be, time and time again. McCain proposed the 96 law, the one that the courts struck down as illegal. He's at it again. Lather, rise, repeat.

[last_texas_dem]

15. That's what I don't understand about this.

Feingold is one U. S. Senator who I mostly trust to get things right. I don't understand where he's coming from here, though. Even if he, McCain, and Ryan believe that the line-item veto would be beneficial, what is the point of trying to pass legislation permitting a line-item veto when it was rejected by the USSC as unconstitutional relatively recently?

I know that the USSC has perhaps become more likely to yield to executive power with Roberts and Alito now on it, but they're also supposedly "strict constructionists"...

Maybe the provision mentioned at the end of the article would make a difference regarding the line item veto's constitutionality.... At the same time, I don't understand why they wouldn't propose it in the form of a constitutional amendment if it's something that truly believe needs to be done. It would face a more uphill battle becoming law, but it would also escape being immediately overturned by the USSC.