Line-item veto? Didn't Clinton try this

[this_side_up]

I am pleased that members of Congress are working on earmark reform, because the federal budget has too many special interest projects. (Applause.) And we can tackle this problem together, if you pass the line-item veto. (Applause.)


and didn't the supremes declare it illegal? Or am I
mis-remembering?

What else is in his dumbass harrangue?

[Bluzmann57]

1. I think it was declared illegal

Schultz was talking about that earlier today.

[alphafemale]

2. * wants a "piss on the constitution" veto

He already scribbles all over the intent of laws and says "this don't mean me"

[Blue Belle]

3. I'm not sure about Clinton.. but I know Reagan pressed hard for it...

The Supreme Court did find it unconstitutional... but I suppose that will change now that Roberts and Alito are on the bench. Amazing that he's starting with the "Line item veto" meme now that his hinchmen are on the court - he's not wasting any time at all.

[JeffR]

4. Clinton did call for it

In at least one SOTU.

Damn thing is that, in his hands, it would have been a good thing.

[punpirate]

5. Odd, indeed, since...

... there is SC precedent existing (it was introduced during Clinton's term in office and was struck down by the SC). Odd, too, since those bills in which earmarks have been egregious were signed by his Shrubness, virtually without comment.

It seems obvious that his intent, therefore, is to further marginalize Democrats in bringing money back to their districts, and to ignore issues of substance (such as anti-torture amendments in appropriations bills) without resorting to the legal sophistry of signing statements. I would bet that any new legislation proposed by Congress to step around the SC ruling is not going to be limited to appropriations.

[this_side_up]

6. Thank you all for your replies.

Obviously the reps will increase their
speed on ruining this country.

the damage done 2006 through 08 should be
quite impressive. And the damned dems
will go along in order to get along, meaning
more money in their stock portfolios.

[livvy]

7. From Wikipedia...

In the United States of America
This power is held by many state governors in the United States of America. As of 2005, all but seven states allow the line-item veto, namely Indiana, Maryland, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Rhode Island, and Vermont.

The President of the United States was briefly granted this power by the Line Item Veto Act of 1996, passed by Congress in order to control "pork barrel spending" that favors a particular region rather than the nation as a whole. The line-item veto was used 82 <1> <2> times by President Bill Clinton before U.S. District Court Judge Thomas F. Hogan decided on February 12, 1998 that unilateral amendment or repeal of only parts of statutes violated the U.S. Constitution. This ruling was subsequently affirmed on June 25, 1998 by a 6-3 decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case Clinton v. City of New York.

Despite the court cases ruling the power unconstitutional, President George W. Bush requested that Congress give him the power of the line item veto in his 2006 State of the Union address.

The Confederate States Constitution of 1861 allowed the Confederate president the power of a line-item veto.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Line_item_veto