Per “Politico,” house Republicans asked for, and President Obama tentatively supported, a line item veto proposal. Line item veto bills restructure the interplay between the President and the Congress by permitting the President to pass congressional submissions piecemeal, by rejecting individual components. If that sounds revolutionary — well, it is. That’s why the Supreme Court soundly rejected it the first time the power was presented to President Clinton, by a Republican Congress. Clinton v. City of New York, 524 U.S. 517 (2008).
There may be ways to work around the line item veto’s unconstitutionality. Because the statute’s problem is its elimination of the “presentment” requirement — basically, Congress must have the last word on the text of any whole statute — a procedure giving Congress a limited “second look” may survive judicial review.
But if that’s how the statute would have to function…what’s the point? Rather than an arguably beneficial alteration of the legislative process, a “second-look” line item veto would be little more than a substitute for the informal discourse that should already be happening between Congress and the President. The two political branches should, already, conduct business by identifying notes of disagreement and compromising on them. Admittedly, because congressional Republicans have chosen to frame their disputes with the President as individual apocalypses (“American values or socialism!”), bereft of any middle ground, that form of robust, necessary dialogue is impossible.
Note that the last time the line item veto came up was with a Republican Congress hellbent on destroying a Democratic President at all costs. Then as now, Republicans turned to a crutch to acquit themselves of the need to fight an all-out war over every issue. How sad that that’s their only option. A second-look line item veto could solve this country’s partisanship problem, but are we really ready to give up on good-faith negotiations, and settle for a parliamentary mechanism that forces a bureaucratic substitute?
There is no need for a line item veto when legislation is clearly written and has a single purpose. When legislation (particularly appropriations legislation) gets saddled with all sorts of riders and conditionals, thts when the legislation often become unpalatable (and MIGHT benefit from lin eitem redactions). sadly, the days of clearly written legislation absent riders is LONG gone.
To carry your point, however, how do states rationalize the line item veto? and what might that give us as a lesson learned for the federal version?
Posted by Philip H | January 29, 2010, 4:24 pmWell, some states don’t have the presentment requirement. I think it’s probably a pretty good idea, if your constitution permits it, but I can’t be sure.
Posted by ACG | January 29, 2010, 8:14 pmI’m still not buying it. Look at the Fiscal Year 2011 budget that will be released by the WH today. It should be voted on, up or down, in its individual parts (there are now 12 Appropriations Bills), each should be free from riders or amendments that do authorizing; and they are supposed to be completed and signed by 1 October.
Care to start a side-bet on IF any of that will happen? My money is not, and the President will have to decide whether to veto any of the bills. That said, vetoing a whole bill, riders and all, is a lot more politically powerful.
Posted by Philip H | February 1, 2010, 9:13 amAnd what would it take for there to be a requirement that legislation is self-contained and absent riders? Congressional rule, legislation, or a constitutional amendment?
Any legislation must be broken up into what constituent parts can be construed as independent bills; these parts can be voted up or down as a whole by congress, but must be presented to the president for signature or veto as separate pieces of legislation.
Would something like that be possible, actually work, and be desirable?
Posted by Kris | February 1, 2010, 1:12 pmTechnically everything you put on the table already exists as rules or statutes. They get adhered to more in spirit then in fact. I happen to think its desirable, but I’m tired of Congress authorizing new programs in appropriations legislation. Makes the book keeping more complicatedthen it needs to be.
Posted by Philip H | February 1, 2010, 2:35 pm