Why does the Democratic Party NOT support ........

[serryjw]

line item veto?. Does it not make sense?:shrug:

[NMDemDist2]

1. i thought we did

or at least Clinton did, didn't he?

[OpSomBlood]

2. I'd like the party to support term limits for Congress.

You'd eliminate 120-year-old Senators from states too stupid to know that the guy they are voting for is mentally incapacitated (but still smarter than most of them).

[sallyseven]

11. No way at all. The people determine the term

limits on their representatives. That is good enough. If they chose wrong then it is their problem.

[OpSomBlood]

12. Actually, it's all of our problem.

The Founders never intended for there to be career Congressmen.

[freetobegay]

3. Not to be a party pooper

But it was Bill Clinton that got it through & then had it revoked by a repuke Congress.

[grannylib]

4. A Repuke Congress that would have KILLED to give it to Ray-guns...

Repukes were all in favor of it when the Bozo was in office. Funny how things change, huh?

[rwenos]

6. Ditto . . Dem's Had Congress Then

When the line-item was proposed - it's the law in California, and Reagan always wanted it in Washington, based on his experience as governor here in Cali. At that time, the Democratic House of Representatives was the only thing that stood between Reagan, a Repub majority in the Senate, and 1934 Germany.

[NMDemDist2]

5. ok I thought Clinton had passed that

but I didn't hear it had been revoked :cry:

[shraby]

7. Line-item veto is a

two edged sword. Might better disallow riders to bills.

[NewHampshireDem]

8. Actually, the SCOTUS declared it unconstitutional ...

http://thomas.loc.gov/home/line_item_veto.html

I'd say that I'd have to agree. It not only upsets the system of checks and balances in the Constitution, it gives way too much power to the executive branch.

[durutti]

9. Because it's unconstitutional?

n/t

[depakid]

10. There are Constitutional

involving Article 1 section 7 (the Presentment clause). Essentially, this is a balance of powers issue.

The Supreme Court struck down the line item veto legislation in Clinton v. New York, ruling "in favor" of Congress.

Here's how the scheme worked:

http://thomas.loc.gov/home/line_item_veto.html

The only way to create any similar form of line item veto would require a constitutional amendment.

[Radical Activist]

13. Robert Byrd makes a great argument

against the line-item veto in his new book I just started reading. I have to agree with him that it gives the President far greater power than he should have.

[no name no slogan]

14. I used to favor it, but now I'm against it

ESPECIALLY since BushCo have shifted the balance of power heavily toward the President. Compared to the powers the Commander-in-Chief has, the Congress is about as useless as a peckerless bull.

The line-item veto is mostly a non-partisan issue, as members from both parties have championed it at one time or another (depending on who the Executive is at the time). Best to reform the system in a different way that won't consolidate more power with the President.

[TreasonousBastard]

15. I don't have any references offhand, but...

I seem to remember a bunch of articles about the states that have a line-item veto having more problems because of it.

Politicians being politicians, they are finding ways of using the line-item veto to intimidate the opposition. At any rate, it is not having it's intended effect. no more than term limits has.

If it weren't blown out by the Supreme Court, the President could easily use it to twist arms of congresscritters over their favorite projects, and push some of his own. It could make matters worse.

[wurzel]

16. Because most bills are compromises.

You give me this. I'll give you that. Without this the system cannot work. If the leader of a party can unilaterally veto a promise, the system won't work.