Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: JDN who wrote (543053)	2/20/2004 7:19:23 AM
From: goldworldnet	Respond to of 769670

Line-item veto may be revived By Klaus Marre - Feb 10, 2004 hillnews.com President Bush is seeking line-item veto power in an effort to curtail congressional spending and reduce the debt, and one senior White House adviser expressed confidence that the president can be given the authority without violating the Constitution. Bush’s budget proposal would allow the president to “reject new appropriations, new mandatory spending, or limited grants of tax benefits (to 100 or fewer beneficiaries) whenever the president determines the spending or tax benefits are not essential government priorities.” The line-item veto would be tied to deficit spending, with any savings achieved going toward debt reduction. Josh Bolten, director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), told the Senate Budget Committee last week: “Our lawyers are confident that a renewed line-item proposal could be crafted that would withstand” constitutional challenge in the courts. An administration official said the line-item veto would be “an important tool to help keep spending under control.” The White House plans to work with Congress to find the “most appropriate way” to craft legislation, the administration official said, pointing out that the issue has a constitutional history. Legislation giving the president line-item veto authority passed in 1996, but in 1998 the Supreme Court ruled it unconstitutional in a 6-3 decision with Justices Antonin Scalia, Stephen Breyer and Sandra Day O’Connor dissenting. The makeup of the court has not changed since then. The majority said in its decision: “We do not lightly conclude that [enacting a line-item veto] was unauthorized by the Constitution. We have, however, twice had full argument and briefing on the question and have concluded that our duty is clear.” Having already decided to strike the law, the Supreme Court did not rule on whether the legislation “impermissibly disrupts the balance of powers among the three branches of government.” Most states grant their governors some form of line-item veto, and last year the Arizona Supreme Court decided not to rule on a case that challenged the governor’s line-item veto power. In 1996, Republicans strongly supported the line-item veto legislation, with some Democrats vigorously fighting it. Sen. Elizabeth Dole (R-N.C.), whose husband, former Sen. Bob Dole (R-Kan.), sponsored the previous line-item veto legislation, last year introduced a resolution that would amend the Constitution to grant the president line-item veto authority. A similar resolution also has been introduced in the House by Reps. Robert Andrews (D-N.J.) and Todd Platts (R-Pa.). Sen. Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.), who challenged the previous law but was denied standing in court, last week indicated that he opposes Congress’s giving away its power to spend. “We had that same thing” last year when the Senate gave the president its power to declare war in the Iraq resolution, Byrd said, adding that it was a “shameful, disgraceful thing for the Senate to do.” “Looks like they want us to do the same thing when it comes to the power of the purse,” Byrd said. In 1996, Sen. Bill Frist (R-Tenn.), now the majority leader, Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle (D-S.D.) and Rep. J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.), now Speaker, voted for the line-item veto bill. Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), now House minority leader, opposed it. * * *