Obama Proposes Spending-Cut Procedure

[Pangloss]

The President sent a bill to Congress today that proposes a new procedure that would allow the president in the future to create a package of spending cuts after the budget passes that would then be up-or-down voted on by Congress (no amendments). It's a kind of fallback from the line-item veto concept, and it's considered Court-proof because each package would be voted on by Congress.

 

There's only one hitch: When the idea came up from Republicans during the Bush administration it was roundly chastised by Democrats, who voted overwhelmingly against it. Gee, I wonder why.

 

But early quotes from Democrats this time around (see link below) are supportive, and from Republicans are along the lines of "oh NOW he asks for this...", rather than "well it was a good idea then but now it's not", which suggests that the measure could pass. I think it's a pretty good idea -- any time they can pass spending cuts without amendments it's got to be a good thing. What do you all think?

 

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/theoval/post/2010/05/obamas-spending-cut-plan-has-failed-in-past/1

[john5746]

Would be nice if Obama would just hit it back in their court by agreeing that it should have been supported before, we were wrong, now it is needed even more. Let's do the right thing for the country.

 

But in an election year, Nah. Maybe the republicans will find this one too hard to fight, anyway. Blanket ideas about cutting spending are very popular.

[jackson33]

It's a fallback from the line-item veto that presidents long have sought but the Supreme Court has ruled unconstitutional. In that case, Obama could simply eliminate items before signing a bill; in this case, he would sign it, then propose cuts for Congress to consider. [/Quote]

 

This would still be found Unconstitutional and further election year rhetoric. The President of any party or members of his staff (VP is President of the Senate) that can find out what's in any bill, whether in the House, Senate or being ironed out in joint conference. He/She can then voice any objections.

 

I'm sure this is an objectionable comment, but I am seriously thinking either the WH is being run by children, or they think the people (electorate) are all total idiots.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

What's unconstitutional about it? It'd still be passed back to Congress for a vote, so it's very much unlike a line-item veto. The bill as a whole would have already passed.

[bascule]

Anyone have any idea what this (or the previously proposed Republican legislation) is called? A cursory googling isn't turning it up, and I'm having a difficult time figuring out exactly what this (or the previous Republican proposal) actually does.

[jackson33]

bascule;

Though the Supreme Court struck down the Line Item Veto Act in 1998, President George W. Bush asked Congress to enact legislation that would return the line item veto power to the Executive. First announcing his intent to seek such legislation in his January 31, 2006 State of the Union address, President Bush sent a legislative proposal Legislative Line Item Veto Act of 2006 to Congress on March 6, 2006, urging its prompt passage. Senator Bill Frist, Senator John McCain, and Republican Whip Senator Mitch McConnell jointly introduced this proposal. Representative Paul Ryan introduced his own version, the Legislative Line Item Veto Act of 2006, in March of that year.[5] [/Quote]

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Line-item_veto

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

The proposal isn't a line-item veto; it's more of a line-item vote-on-removing-this-please.

 

Here's more detail, including the name of the bill:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2010/05/democrats-cautious-on-obamas-s.html?wprss=44

 

The Reduce Unnecessary Spending Act of 2010, a twist on the line-item veto, would give Obama and future presidents greater leeway in seeking changes to appropriations bills. Under the proposal, unveiled Monday by the White House, presidents would send recommended cuts to Congress within a specific time frame after a spending bill is signed, and the House and the Senate would approve or reject the changes by an up-or-down vote.

[jackson33]

CR;

What's unconstitutional about it? It'd still be passed back to Congress for a vote, so it's very much unlike a line-item veto. The bill as a whole would have already passed. [/Quote]

 

When asked how this proposed legislation was different from the 1996 Line Item Veto Act that was found unconstitutional by the United States Supreme Court, Bolten said that whereas the former act granted unilateral authority to the Executive to disallow specific spending line items, the new proposal would seek Congressional approval of such line-item vetoes. [/Quote]

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Line-item_veto

 

Boltens argument, same as yours (IMO) would not be found Constitutional. Since never enacted, they (any court) has NOT ruled on this. Line item veto and eliminating items, would have the same meaning and/or potential recourse.

 

Same meaning; Changing the legislation, equal to Executive legislating...not constitutional.

 

Recourse; Whether returned/vetoed in part (suggested) or simple lined out (partial veto), Congress still has the prerogative to Legislate the same items and pass with 50% plus one House Vote and the 60% required in the Senate. One item at a time, has no relevance.

 

My conclusion, for what its worth; Since Legislation is inclusive (everything related to the purpose of the bill) any change effected by the removal of any part or wording, would/could change the purpose of a bill. I would further suggest Congress, would LOSE the right/authority to over ride the veto, the authority of Congress (not the Executive). Separation of powers is important and any requested changes can be address by the Executive, before it's offered or passed.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

The President often sends bills directly to Congress for debate, modification, and approval. Since Congress has the ability to accept or decline the President's removals, how is this different? The President is simply returning a suggested modification to the bill to Congress, which still has to approve it.

[Pangloss]

Right, clearly it's not a veto at all, it's a bill proposing new legislation, which would then be voted on by Congress -- exactly what's normally done. Changing the budget after it passes is common, and the only thing unusual about this is the elimination of amendments.

 

But I think jackson33 has given us some good insight as to how some on the partisan right will respond.

[jackson33]

CR; Whether the President or jackson33 submits a suggested bill to either house of Congress, it represents the same power, put another way only Congress can legislate, Congress can ignore both. While I was arguing Bolten's argument and feel a valid one, something is not making sense. If the President is suggesting something he already has the right to do (asking for reconsideration of a law, is NOT one), there must be something going unsaid. Any BILL, spending or otherwise, that properly (uncontested legally) and signed by the President is then law, whatever happens after the fact meaningless, short of an outright bill to appeal the entirety. The current Health Bill, which is law today and being revised and implemented (changed around by the Executive), is already arguably not irrepealably, under the Constitution, short of the Constitutionality of the Bill itself or a substantial part of the Bill, where only the SC can overturn, THEN as written.

 

I'll go back to my first comments; This is probably political rhetoric or the assumption the electorate will feel the Administration is trying in some manner to balance future debt. If I'm even close in my assumptions/accusations, it must be coming from the childish minds with no intentions of ever practicing the policies suggested. I have no other way to explain my feelings.

 

As always, when I'm speaking of interpretation of law, it's my opinion.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Pangloss; Do you know I'm missing FNC, nightly propaganda, to reply.

 

Amendment are voted on BEFORE the bill CAN be voted on, not after the BILL becomes law. When the President SIGNS the bill, it is LAW.

 

But I think jackson33 has given us some good insight as to how some on the partisan right will respond. [/Quote]

 

The partisan right??? Anything that would give the Executive more power, which this does NOT, on it own merits would be unconstitutional. The SC, the Laws and Constitution have ALWAYS been concerned with maintaining this separation. If the far right does get involved, I'd suggest it will be in the talked about HCB, as it's being implemented under something forgotten to add to 2000+ pages of the law, certainly not on political rhetoric, to win an election.

 

 

Hannity will be coming on soon...If I've missed any of you other replies, I get back with you tomorrow...

[Pangloss]

CR; Whether the President or jackson33 submits a suggested bill to either house of Congress, it represents the same power, put another way only Congress can legislate, Congress can ignore both.

 

Presidents submit bills for consideration all the time; it's assumed that Congress can choose not to act on them. Nothing different from that is proposed here. If they don't want to pass his cuts, they don't have to pass his cuts.

 

 

This is probably political rhetoric or the assumption the electorate will feel the Administration is trying in some manner to balance future debt.

 

Perhaps, but in fact procedural changes happen all the time and are a part of the normal discourse of government. This is how amendments (and earmarks) have come to be such a problem in the first place -- they leverage procedure to sneak things in under the radar. Changes in procedure can deal with problems like that without causing the kind of constitutional crisis that will upset Fox News or MSNBC viewers. I say more power to 'em. Not everything has to become fodder for removing a god-forsaken liberal from office, you know.

 

 

Hannity will be coming on soon...If I've missed any of you other replies, I get back with you tomorrow...

 

<nod>

[jackson33]

Presidents submit bills for consideration all the time; it's assumed that Congress can choose not to act on them. Nothing different from that is proposed here. If they don't want to pass his cuts, they don't have to pass his cuts. [/Quote]

 

Pangloss; That's not even close to what's being requested, from you OP, link!

 

In that case, Obama could simply eliminate items before signing a bill; in this case, he would sign it, then propose cuts for Congress to consider. [/Quote]

 

Please, explain the legal difference between "eliminating items" and "lining out items" before signing a bill, both IMO unconstitutional as being legislation from the Executive, who is charged with enforcing any law, including Congressional Legislation.

 

I believe you and CR are thinking the suggested law (bill), that bills will be signed "as is" (not correct) and then Congress will be "asked" to reconsider, certain aspects of the then, NEW LAW.

 

Perhaps, but in fact procedural changes happen all the time and are a part of the normal discourse of government. [/Quote]

 

This could really get complicated, but procedural changes ALL are supposedly fitted to meet compliance with Constitutional Authority. I'd suggest a good many would be found unconstitutional if challenged, which many Presidents ARE found, under their authority as Commander In Chief. To explain this; If this suggested Bill were passed (Congress, will not give up the authority or should they IMO) in theory, any future President could 'line out/eliminate' anything they wish (probably leading to adding anything they wish), then sending that list of items for reconsideration. If they in fact passed another bill, with all the objectionable items, the President would no doubt VETO anyway, which would then require a 2/3rds majority to over ride. This boils down to Executive (one person) legislation...

 

This is how amendments (and earmarks) have come to be such a problem in the first place -- they leverage procedure to sneak things in under the radar. [/Quote]

 

Another very complicated issue and I certainly agree, FAR to much of this practice exist, BUT tolerated by both Congress and the Executive. As mentioned however, these items are and always have been available for review. Any member of Congress (Both Houses) must be given a COMPLETE copy of legislation, prior to any vote, by the way this includes the VP as President of the Senate and I feel sure any Administration can find access. I'd suggest, a good share of this practice, involves "compromise", where a member or many members will require an earmark or amendment, to get their vote....

 

Changes in procedure can deal with problems like that without causing the kind of constitutional crisis that will upset Fox News or MSNBC viewers. I say more power to 'em. Not everything has to become fodder for removing a god-forsaken liberal from office, you know. [/Quote]

 

I do understand your point, but try real hard to remember Bush 43 and his media coverage over his 8 years. From DAY ONE, under Al Gore's direction, he was the 'illegitimate President' and the focus of the loyal opposition was to get HIM and his "god-forsaken" Congress out of office. As for this liberal Congress/Administration and at this time, looking at nearly two years of policy and results and with consideration to the entire worlds economic condition, a little additional attention, IS IN ORDER.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

In that case, Obama could simply eliminate items before signing a bill; in this case, he would sign it, then propose cuts for Congress to consider.

Please, explain the legal difference between "eliminating items" and "lining out items" before signing a bill, both IMO unconstitutional as being legislation from the Executive, who is charged with enforcing any law, including Congressional Legislation.

 

You're absolutely right about it being unconstitutional, because the portion of that sentence in bold is describing a line-item veto. The bill does not propose this mechanism. The bill proposes what's after the semicolon: Obama signs the bill, then proposes changes to it.

 

Again:

Under the proposal, unveiled Monday by the White House, presidents would send recommended cuts to Congress within a specific time frame after a spending bill is signed, and the House and the Senate would approve or reject the changes by an up-or-down vote.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2010/05/democrats-cautious-on-obamas-s.html?wprss=44

[jackson33]

Under the proposal, unveiled Monday by the White House, presidents would send recommended cuts to Congress within a specific time frame after a spending bill is signed, and the House and the Senate would approve or reject the changes by an up-or-down vote. [/Quote]

 

CR; Once any bill is signed, spending bill or otherwise, that bill has become LAW. If you sign an agreement, any consideration for signing that agreement MUST be addressed before signing, once signed you don't then get the opportunity for revisions, either direction, nor should Government. Another point would be; The act of removing anything from the bill is in fact a VETO of that part (legislating) and would require a 2/3rd majority to over ride, even if the rest of this were found legal (would not be, even if Congress went along with this proposal).

 

'ADDS TO THE ARSENAL'

 

White House budget director Peter Orszag said the proposal would help tackle the country's budget challenges.

 

"It adds to the arsenal in trying to cut back on unnecessary spending," Orszag told reporters. "It's not a panacea, but it's an important additional tool." [/Quote]

 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20100524/pl_nm/us_obama_budget_cuts

 

This the apparent purpose of the proposal; I read this as....The Executive Branch of Government, should have the right to pick & choose what's seen as the priorities for National Spending. That is alone unconstitutional and an expansion of the executive.

 

 

For the record; I understand the concept of line item, or the desire to pick and choose by the Executive, however under most circumstances (split party control of each branch), that authority could and IMO would lead to all kinds of problems. To VETO or the threat of VETO power, to cut spending, impede or stop, objectionable legislation, then in its entirety as presented by those delegated to offer that legislation, has been well established in precedence. I also do think, this remains political election year rhetoric, no less than passing Pay-go, while increasing the National Debt limit to 14.1T$, which by the way has been totally ignored.

[Pangloss]

Which in this case is not being proposed. There is no veto being suggested here.

 

If what you say were true then Congress could never change any law. Clearly that's not the case. Laws are changed via new laws all the time. They're not Constitutional Amendments once they're passed.

 

Look at it this way: If you're right you'll be unable to repeal health care reform, because "that bill has become LAW". Of course that's clearly not the case, and health care may face several challenges including new laws that either blunt or repeal various aspects of it depending on the outcomes of the 2010 and 2012 elections.

 

Because that's how it works.

Edited May 25, 2010 by Pangloss

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

1. Congress passes bill.
   
2. President signs bill.
   
3. President sends new bill to Congress, a bill which revises the old bill. (This is done all the time, as Pangloss points out. New bills revise old law.)
   
4. Congress reviews the new one and votes on it.
   

 

The legislative branch is allowed to vote, as they should, and they pass the revision bill just as they'd pass any other revision bill.

[jackson33]

Pangloss/CR; Here is the related part of the US Constitution;

 

Article I Section 7.

 

All bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with amendments as on other Bills.

 

Every bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a law, be presented to the President of the United States; if he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the objections at large on their journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the bill, it shall be sent, together with the objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a law. But in all such cases the votes of both Houses shall be determined by yeas and nays, and the names of the persons voting for and against the bill shall be entered on the journal of each House respectively. If any bill shall not be returned by the President within ten days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the same shall be a law, in like manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their adjournment prevent its return, in which case it shall not be a law.

 

Every order, resolution, or vote to which the concurrence of the Senate and House of Representatives may be necessary (except on a question of adjournment) shall be presented to the President of the United States; and before the same shall take effect, shall be approved by him, or being disapproved by him, shall be repassed by two thirds of the Senate and House of Representatives, according to the rules and limitations prescribed in the case of a bill. [/Quote]

 

http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html

 

You will note, that nowhere, does the President have the authority to alter or change any legislation, BEFORE SIGNING the bill. In fact, if there are OBJECTIONS, the procedure is spelled out.

 

Here is another legal opinion and I could furnish you with many more;

 

Giving the president the power to unilaterally strike down portions of laws unless Congress takes additional steps would clearly require a Constitutional amendment. This would work, however, if the president were to submit a list of rescissions for Congress to pass into law. The bully pulpit could be used to shine a spotlight on particularly egregious instances of pork, so it wouldn't be a completely toothless measure.[/Quote]

 

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/obama_wants_line-item_veto

 

Here is a current Washington post, making several of my points, then giving REASONABLE reasons, Congress might just be receptive, though I disagree...

 

But the proposal will have to pass a Congress wary of giving up power over the purse, and would require a reversal by many Democrats who voted against a similar proposal from Mr. Bush.

 

One who's already reversed himself is Mr. Obama, who as a senator in 2007 voted along with Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr., now the vice president, and almost all of the rest of Senate Democrats to filibuster Mr. Bush's proposal....

 

Analysts said the enhanced authority wouldn't have a big impact for a government that will spend close to $4 trillion this year, and suggested the timing is more about providing cover for a potential $200 billion spending and tax-cut-extensions bill Congress will try to pass this week. [/Quote]

 

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/may/25/when-president-george-w-bush-called-for-a-kind-of-/

 

3- President sends new bill to Congress, a bill which revises the old bill. (This is done all the time, as Pangloss points out. New bills revise old law.) [/Quote]

 

Not true, but I;d love to see one that comes close to the suggested procedure. Yes, the President the enforcer of law/legislation can question or suggest anything he/she wants, but to request changes on bills just made law, would make no sense.

 

4- Congress reviews the new one and votes on it. [/Quote]

 

I'm not sure I even understand this, but all this is done on proposed New Law prior to even being voted on by either chamber. This is where the Executive can be influential and should be (they will be charged with enforcement/distribution).

 

1 and 2, you split which is what's now and should remain. Simply said, the Executive cannot in any manner, alter, change or revise any bill prior to signing, that's called decreeing.

 

 

Pangloss; The HCB, is about as complicated as the US Tax Code, which along the line of this conversation is revised to some degree probably weekly, major adjustments every year. One problem with the HC Bill, it will be subject to the same procedures, very much as SS/Medicaid/Medicare/Welfare and all there sub-programs (Unemployment Insurance etc) are constantly being adjusted, by each Congress, each New Administration or changes required by law. Contrary to popular belief, my opinion, short of Federal Authority to be involved at all (State Rights), I doubt Congress can repeal the law in it's entirety. The programs were purposely built around other Social Programs, which in themselves will be legally tested and probably by precedence could no longer be found unconstitutional. They could somehow phase out programs, which would be possible for HC, since most hasn't been implemented...A good share of Johnson's 'Great Society' legislation was in fact phased out, not repealed.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

You will note, that nowhere, does the President have the authority to alter or change any legislation, BEFORE SIGNING the bill. In fact, if there are OBJECTIONS, the procedure is spelled out.

Fortunately, the procedure does nothing before the signing of the bill.

 

Not true, but I;d love to see one that comes close to the suggested procedure. Yes, the President the enforcer of law/legislation can question or suggest anything he/she wants, but to request changes on bills just made law, would make no sense.

Requesting changes on bills just made law is exactly what the procedure does.

 

The executive branch has the sole authority to actually spend money appropriated. It can avoid spending the money until the appropriations are revised by the President's suggestion, and in fact that's what the procedure will do. The OMB will withhold the funds until Congress votes on the President's suggestions.

 

Here is the entire bill for you to peruse:

 

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/assets/blog/Unnecessary_Spending_Act.pdf

[Pangloss]

You will note, that nowhere, does the President have the authority to alter or change any legislation, BEFORE SIGNING the bill. In fact, if there are OBJECTIONS, the procedure is spelled out.

 

This is not a proposal to allow the president to alter previously-passed legislation. This would require new legislation, which would have to be passed by congress.

 

It sounds like you may be confusing this idea with the reconciliation process. This proposal does not allow for modifications to passed legislation.

Edited May 26, 2010 by Pangloss

[jackson33]

From the summery;

 

Chapter 1 establishes a special process under which the President may request the rescission of funding contained in a newly enacted bill. This commonly occurs in appropriations bills, but sometimes other bills include non-entitlement funding, which is also subject to this act. The Congress must then consider those requests in a package (generally one package per newly enacted bill) under an expedited procedure leading to a guaranteed, up-or-down vote on the entire package without amendment. While the Congress cannot amend the package, it would omit from the bill any proposed rescission containing matter that goes beyond the limited types of rescission requests permitted under this new process. [/Quote]

 

CR; For those reading this post, that might not know the meaning of "rescission", it's the cancellation (rescinding) of a part or parts of a 'Bill". If this is NOT being done in advance of the signing (not what others have suggested) or requested to be done, it's meaningless to the procedure, but it's most certainly an attempt to by pass the VETO power, with a plurality vote. That is a bill that could not have achieved a 2/3rds over ride, required a 60 vote margin in the Senate, could then be amended back (important, EITHER direction) with a simple majority and would be rewriting the law to the majorities wishes. For instance, if to pass a Bill 'seven' amendments were added to achieve the required vote on final in the Senate (usually 60%), then the President (this one or in the future) could then "request(?) rescission" of those seven amendments as a package with a simple majority. Anyway you look at this alone, IMO, it won't pass a constitutional test.

 

Requesting changes on bills just made law is exactly what the procedure does. [/Quote]

 

In conjunction with the above, there is a procedure in the C, for objectionable parts of any bill. Either make those objections, sending the bill back in it's entirety for reconsideration, or object but sign the bill into law. This is tantamount to rewriting the legislation...Read section 1022 (Definitions), do you see anything keeping these request, being for MORE than the bill allows...

 

No Pangloss: First and foremost reconciliation is a procedural process with in the Congress and Constitutional. I could argue it's intended purpose (same issue, lowering cost of Government) to what it has actually produced), but has nothing to do with keeping the desired separation of Branch Powers and my concern....

 

This is not a proposal to allow the president to alter previously-passed legislation. This would require new legislation, which would have to be passed by congress. [/Quote]

 

IMO; It's an attempt for the executive to impede on the powers of the Legislative Branch...Read the section mentioned above (1022) and explain to me how this is not rewriting law, when you have even a simple majority to fit your agenda. This would work both ways and I no more want Palin, Bush 43 or any ONE person, with that much authority. I'm not even happy with the 545 members of Congress doing this, favoring Constitutional Amendments and the 50 State Legislatures being involved on Major Issues.

[Pangloss]

Dude, what do you think "up or down vote" means?

 

And what's with all the smothering rhetoric? Do you think we'll get lost between the lines? Stop trying to change the subject.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

CR; For those reading this post, that might not know the meaning of "rescission", it's the cancellation (rescinding) of a part or parts of a 'Bill". If this is NOT being done in advance of the signing (not what others have suggested) or requested to be done, it's meaningless to the procedure, but it's most certainly an attempt to by pass the VETO power, with a plurality vote.

It's done after the signing of the bill.

 

In conjunction with the above, there is a procedure in the C, for objectionable parts of any bill. Either make those objections, sending the bill back in it's entirety for reconsideration, or object but sign the bill into law. This is tantamount to rewriting the legislation...Read section 1022 (Definitions), do you see anything keeping these request, being for MORE than the bill allows...

The bill is signed into law.

 

After the bill is signed into law, the President sends his proposal to the House clerk and the Secretary of the Senate. They make the proposal into a new bill that changes the appropriations. The House and the Senate then vote on the bill.

 

The rescissions are voted on as ordinary bills, but not amendable. That's it.

[jackson33]

In this discussion, it's been my argument, that 'Separation of Powers' is the vital issue involved noting from other threads, reducing cost of Government should be the duty of Congress, not the executive. The Executive as no designed power to either lower of raise revenues, it should not have any roll, other than constitutionally implied (veto power), in the formation of legislation. My argument are based on the following;

 

Clinton v. City of New York, 524 U.S. 417 (1998), is a legal case in which the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that the line-item veto as granted in the Line Item Veto Act of 1996 violated the Presentment Clause of the United States Constitution because it impermissibly gave the President of the United States the power to unilaterally amend or repeal parts of statutes that had been duly passed by the United States Congress. The decision of the Court, in a six-to-three majority, was delivered by Justice John Paul Stevens....

 

The Supreme Court's decision

 

In a majority opinion written by Justice John Paul Stevens, the Court ruled that because the Act allowed the President to unilaterally amend or repeal parts of duly enacted statutes by using line-item cancellations, it violated the Presentment Clause of the Constitution,[3] which outlines a specific practice for enacting a statute. The Court construed the silence of the Constitution on the subject of such unilateral Presidential action as equivalent to "an express prohibition", agreeing with historical material that supported the conclusion that statutes may only be enacted "in accord with a single, finely wrought and exhaustively considered, procedure",[4] and that a bill must be approved or rejected by the President in its entirety. [/Quote]

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinton_v._City_of_New_York

 

I further, argued against "Legislative Line Item Veto Act of 2006", which passed the House, but did not pass the Senate, which two NO votes came from Senator's Obama and Biden, agreeing with them that the Bill would degrade the separations of powers. While I would suggest, this was less intrusive into Congressional Power, than the Obama Plan, they are certainly similar. If interested, here is the 2006 Text of HR 4890;

 

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h109-4890

 

Then I've concluded, IMO the thread proposal, will not stand Constitution scrutiny (on several grounds), with the caveat that it will never be passed by the US Congress, in the first place.

 

Please accept this as my summation (resting my case), as I see no need to cause apparent hard feelings from both the Forum Administration and the Sub-Forum Moderator, on such an issue.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

The Line Item Veto Act of 1996 allowed the president to veto spending, whereupon his veto held unless Congress passed a bill to oppose it, and the President signed it. The President, since he doesn't want the spending, could obviously veto Congress's bill, so Congress would have to override the President's veto, of course. Since the Act would have the veto stay if Congress did nothing, it basically allowed the President to do whatever he wants.

 

The newer proposals, like HR 4890, require Congress to approve the President's proposal before it takes effect. If Congress ignores the proposal, it does not take effect at all.

 

The proposals are different. The Supreme Court decision in Clinton v. City of New York states:

 

The Act empowers the President to cancel an "item of new direct spending" such as �4722© of the Balanced Budget Act and a "limited tax benefit" such as �968 of the Taxpayer Relief Act, �691(a), specifying that such cancellation prevents a provision "from having legal force or effect," ��691e(4)(B)-©. Thus, in both legal and practical effect, the presidential actions at issue have amended two Acts of Congress by repealing a portion of each. Statutory repeals must conform with Art. I, INS v. Chadha, 462 U.S. 919, 954 , but there is no constitutional authorization for the President to amend or repeal.

 

However, the new proposal has Congress pass the law to make the amendment, rather than giving the President sole authority. The President merely proposes that Congress passes a new bill. I don't see how the Supreme Court's logic applies here; the President is not amending Acts of Congress, Congress is.

 

Incidentally, my being an administrator should have no bearing in this discussion; our policy is that if we're involved in a discussion, we don't act as moderators in that discussion. If I think something's going wrong here, I report the post and let other staff decide what to do. We try to avoid unfairness whenever possible.