As I recall, the Supreme Court has already addressed the constitutionality of the line-item veto when Clinton was president. As the constitution makes clear, congress makes the laws and the president executes and enforces those laws. The line item veto gives the president legislative authority because he is able to veto certain provisions in a bill, yet still sign the other parts of the bill into law. Altering a bill that has been passed through Congress is not a power that a president should wield. This is beyond the president's constitutional authority. Just thought I'd throw that out there.

Good for the Democrats for restraining Bush's power grab.

We don't need an imperial presidency despite the best Republican efforts to make create it.

You can't blow $10 billion a month on an ill planned war, cut taxes for the wealthy and for businesses and restrain spending with prok projects.

No Bush, it is you and the Rubber Stamp Republican congress who cannot have it both ways.

Why are we sufferring this corrupt, power before country regime in D.C.?

Wade

It's funny how different the partisan divide is now, as opposed to 1998 when the line item veto was first passed.

Think about that. Think about it in relation to the issue of how much power you want to confer upon the executive branch vis-a-vis article 2 trumping article 1 or amendments 1 and 4 as well. Like Clinton, Bush will not be president forever. Think about that. Think about it especially considering the possibility that another Clinton presidency -- or another Bush one -- is not completely out of the question.

Now correct me if I’m wrong. Didn’t the most foul William Jefferson Clinton ask fir the same thing way back, when?

If memory serves the Line Item Veto was struck down as unconstitutional; by the Supreme Court in a lopsided margin.

I think it be much better for our fearless leader Bush to stick to them signing statements, which aint been struck down. He can still get ‘round Congress by that means, at least Till’ them darn commie Liberals and their dog foil our evil schemes yet again.

Bubba,
The SC struck down the Line item veto because it gave legislative power to the President. The new version requires a 50%+1 vote to override the line item vetoes when used. This puts legislative power back into the Congress.
Rico, the Republicans gave Clinton the Line Item authority in 1996.

Thanks lefites for the insight into the collective vacuum between your ears.

Is there anything that the moonbats do not interpret through the prism of the hatred for Bush?

If the founding fathers had wanted the President to have the power to line item veto, they would have written it into the Constitution. Republicans are always trying to change the Constitution with marriage amendments and flag burning amendments and 10 Commandment amendments and prayer in schools amendments and so on and so on. And none of it means a thing because bush gives two craps about the Constitution, as many times as he's violated it. Peace

Bane - bubba's point is deeper than that.

Look, the truth is that there isn't a clear line between executive and legislative power. The President issues executive orders, by being CIC he can effectively put us in a war well before Congress declares it.

So what's the relevance of separation of powers? Honestly, the relevance is that each branch has enough strength to not be a pawn of the others. And so, despite the messy truth, you really want to stick to what the Constitution outlined as the powers of each branch as closely as possible. The reason is clear: the original construction took a lot of the "balancing" into account, in a way we're not accustomed to. We're far more partisan than the framers, and that's a good and bad thing.

I'm torn about the line-item veto because the way I see things, Congress holds too much power. They're the ones in charge of the administrative state, all those agencies like the EPA or the FDA that find ways of bugging us conservatives. The War Powers Act is a disgrace; Congress shouldn't have even attempted such a grab. I guess, in the end, I'm opposed to the line-item veto, because if we want to strengthen the President, we should curb Congress' excesses, not change Constitutional form even more.

The President's line-item veto is legislative power. He's effectively becoming one of writers of legislation in the deliberative stage, and that's not his place. That Congress gets a vote after he vetoes a line in the legislation makes him like a committee member.

The line-item veto is just us citizens being lazy and tampering with Constitutional form instead of curbing Congress ourselves. It's a bad idea, because I guarantee you Congress will find a way to use it against the President, and Executive power will wane even more.

I'm all for the Line Item veto. Too many poison pill inatives sneak into bills as well as stupid spending. Though I'd prefer these things get struck down in congress having the line item veto just adds another chance to stop these things.

Oh, and for the record I was for the Line Item Veto for Clinton as well.

steve,
If the Founding Fathers had wanted Freedom of Speech they would have written that into the Constitution, too! I'm sure they amended the Constitution before they heard you or they would have written safeguards to protect us from your infantile observations.

Ashok,
I see your point, remember that many issues have been added to control the process that weren’t intended originally; the Federal Budget process comes to mind.

Once exclusively the domain of Congress, in 1921 the Budget and Accounting Act authorized the President to submit the Budget for the entire Federal Government for the first time. From this (and many other changes) the Government had dealt with the burgeoning processes created by centralizing the functions as the Founders never intended. The line-item veto is an extension of these changes that still has the legislative authority in Congress, but gives the President the ability to correct the process (see: checks and balances) when the Administration’s interests are not represented in the legislation (spending).

The President may veto any legislation that comes across his desk; the line-item veto merely forces the Legislative branch to defend the intentionally hidden items. To my mind, if the line item is so important Congress will override the line-item veto (50%+1) or if it doesn’t stand up to the public scrutiny, they’ll let it go and try another day.