Line-Item Veto: Obama Administration Would "Love To Take That For A Test Drive"

In his press briefing on Wednesday, Robert Gibbs offered the strongest assertion to date that President Obama would like to see the restoration of the line-item veto.

Asked if Obama would use that legislative tool -- which was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in 1998 -- to help weed out the earmarks from the forthcoming omnibus-spending bill, the press secretary replied:

"I can assure you that he'd love to take that for a test drive."

The remark appears to be the most definitive endorsement of the line-item veto from Obama to date. Past presidents have long sought the legislative power to reject specific spending items or tax breaks from individual bills. (Congress would have the power to reinstate the declined items by passing separate legislation). Bill Clinton was granted the authority in 1996, only to have the Court rule it unconstitutional two years later. In 2006, George Bush formally announced that he wanted legislation to re-introduce the line-item veto. His position was echoed by John McCain on the 2008 campaign trail.

But Obama, for his part, doesn't appear to have formally announced support or opposition to the restoration of line-item veto authority.

Asked more generally if, as a way of demonstrating his commitment to cutting down on pork, Obama would veto the entire omnibus-spending bill -- which GOP officials have blasted as containing hundreds if not thousands of earmarks -- Gibbs demurred.

"I think he is very concerned about earmarks," he said. "But without looking at a specific piece of legislation, I'm hesitant to throw out that four-letter word: veto."

Comments

[jsarets]

Legislative pork is a symptom of using single-member district plurality to populate Congress.

Every member of the House and every pair of Senators represents a distinct constituency, and the basis of their electoral support is the notion that they can allocate disproportionate federal resources to their district. This is why we have a patchwork of piecemeal spending programs rather than a cohesive policy framework for public investment.

Even as a progressive who believes in increasing the extent of collective decision-making in capital allocation, I fear the "progression" of American political economy toward a more European-style model, because our democratic institutions don't provide for proportional representation.

In most European legislatures, members represent the share of the national or provincial electorate that voted for their particular platform. In the United States, if your candidate falls short of a plurality in your district, then you effectively have no representation in Congress.

It's important that we realize that the Constitution is a living document that embodies democratic values rather than prescribing institutional structure. Some parts are brilliantly innovative, such as separation of powers and the Bill of Rights, and other parts are plainly lacking.

But I hope we realize that the line-item veto is a step in the wrong direction. We can ignore the fact that Congress is broken and that Article I needs an overhaul until we offload all legislative powers to the executive branch, or we can choose instead to protect the Constitution from itself.

[MJBernard]

that was the most brilliant thing I have read regarding this subject all day. Great job!

I fear that if the line-item veto was taken you would see specific earmarks--­i.e., republican districts--be the sufferers while democratic areas would be just fine.

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/1518064/what_me_earmark.html?singlepage=true&cat=75

[newshawk14]

In some respects, I like the line item veto, in that congress seems unable to control its' appetite
for pork. However, it also strikes me as a tool that the president could use against any
congressman that gainsays him. I think this is something that needs very careful thinking
through, about its' affect on the balance of power between the president and congress.

[Iscarius]

Riiiight, that way Obama and any future President can pick and choose what laws they want to enforce and what they don't. Like signing statements weren't enough. Looks like the American Republic is heading the way of the Roman Republic.

[freaktown]

line item veto gives me the heebie jeebies...

the president shouldn't have that kind of power

[BlueBoomer]

I've always felt that I was for the line-item veto...but now I'm not so sure...

BUT, what I AM for is legislation that stipulates that no amendments can be added to a bill that are not directly associated with the purpose/content of the bill... Inotherwords, the Senate can't add a farm-related amendment to a health-care bill, unless it's regarding health-care for farmers.

We definitely need to tighten up our legislation.

(Frankly, I wish there were a way for all legislative ideas to be anonymous until it was actually passed., sort of like a blind taste-test or blind drug effecacy trial..the­n those whose ideas were ultimately included could take credit (or be blamed).

[Rjmartinelli]

This isn't even a topic of discussion. Gibbs made a musing comment and the author of this article is presenting it as if the President truly wishes to persue gaining the power to make line-item vetos.

As I said earlier: This is sloppy reporting.

You're creating a story from nothing.

[Jim Morgan]

Presidents would always like that. The problem is that it means a carefully composed legislation, with bits to please both house and senate, could have a key item removed. How can Congess negotiate with the president or among themselves when he can take out anything he doesn't like.
Whenever I think this might be a good idea, I take a step back and imagine how a president I don't like will use the power. Obama I trust; Bush or Reagan would have been my worst nightmare with that sort of power.

[d00derman]

Man, that would be sweet. Obama can cut out McCain's pork and claim he is doing it just to cut spending.

[ghop]

Bad, bad, bad idea. People need to remember that the current people in power are not going to be there forever. Imagine if we end up with another W, but with line item veto power *shudder*.

[LREKing]

Exactly.

[NWBrunette]

Fear is by far the most rampant disease affecting Dems. Its time to live large, implement our agenda, do right by the country and win elections. Let's play by a set of rules that makes us effective, rather than living behind a bunch of fear that limits the effectiveness of everyone. Having a line item veto is clearly an effective tool for eliminating unnecessary pork - nothing else comes close.

[got2Bkidding]

Governors have the LIV,why not the president? I haven't heard of any of the problems you've mentioned happening at the state level. Do you have any to reference?

It would allow for the removal of the so called earmarks that are used to bribe a single congress critter into voting for a bill.

The president vetoes the earmarks and signs off on the other parts of the bill. In order to get the earmark back into the bill it would have to be voted on and approved by a majority of the respective body. There is nothing that would gaurantee that could happen.

I thnk it's a good idea.

[JDJase]

Why not the president? Because it's unconstitutional.

[PoliticalAmazon]

Did Obama go to a new Leadership Workshop or something?

Since when does the phracking President of the United States, the leader of the United States of America, let his press room attendant make public policy?

THis is a very dangerous precedent to establish because only designated cabinet members or senior staff should be allowed to do such definitive statements about policy.

If Obama didn't annoint Gibbs as press room attendant/policy decider, then things better change real soon because this is NOT a positive reflection on Obama.

Who will Obama have next announce, or be so bold as to "endorse," a policy which the President has not even yet announced? Perhaps the White House landscape manager? Maybe the guy who picks up their dry-cleaning will be doing the announcements next.

This is just tacky tacky tacky--it's beyond Clinton tacky when they were fresh in the White House.

Oh, to yearn for the good old days when Bill and Hillary CLinton, fresh out of Litle Rock Arkansas and into the White House, exhibted such style and sophistica­tion....we­ll, at east they didn't have lower level staff announcing and giving their opinion on policies that Bill Clinton had not yet announced or publicly discussed himself.

[got2Bkidding]

What part of White House Spokesman don't you understand? I think he knows how the President thinks about things a whole lot better than you do.

[drizzt396]

musing that Obama would love to use the LIV isn't creating public policy, f*cktard

[TreadingWater]

Rather than give the President that kind of power, there should be rules concerning hiding non-relevant pork barrel projects in bills that they don't pertain to.

[ProudMormon]

Just exposing the pork isn't enough. Politicians are shameless.

Obama said he was going to Washington to change the culture there. This would be a BIG step forward in doing so.

No more lard brazenly added by the power brokers in Congress, who know their buddies there won't resist.

Passing a line item veto would cause more tantrums on Capitol Hill than anything else that could possibly happen, and that would be a very good thing.

[ProudMormon]

Abso-freakin-lutely YES.

Pass that bad boy today, if not sooner.

Test drive it all you want.

The reality, though, is that Dems in Congress would NEVER, NEVER EVER allow that to happen.

We sure need it. Now more than ever. Too bad Dems are addicted to pork.

[Furby]

ProudMoron, republicans are also addicted to pork, so for once there would be bipartisan support for something.

[nicole473]

Dems are addicted to pork? Oh, please....­......

[JDJase]

That's interesting, considering the reason we do not have line-item veto now is because your REPUBLICAN mayor rudy giuliani sued Clinton over it and got rid of it.

[aceholiday]

what a terrible idea. i like obama. but i don't like a dictator. even the best dictator in the world will give up his power at some point, and his successor might not be so good. no line item veto for anyone except the people.

[ProudMormon]

A President being able to veto individual lines and approve the rest is a BAD idea. He could fundamentally change the purpose of the bill. He could strip out the entire purpose of a bill, and only pass the fluff.

However, nobody is proposing that.

Bush effectively killed legislation numerous times just by threatening to veto it. Obama could do the same today. He could say, "I don't like the provision in line 12345, and if it stays in the bill I'm going to veto it". That's the same way a Constitutional line item veto would work.

If they keep 12345 in the bill, he vetoes it and the bill dies. He scribbles out line 12345 on the bill and sends it back to Congress, saying "Either pass this without that provision, or overrule my veto and pass the original bill." Then they have to made a decision. Was line 12345 so crucial that they allow the entire bill to die, or do they pass the bill without it?

All such a "line item veto" would do is to facilitate the process of the President and the Congress reaching an acceptable compromise, with both having the exact same Constitutional powers to write or to approve the final legislation as they do today.

[WFTomba]

I voted for Obama and I like him a lot, but he shouldn't get a line-item veto. It's unconstitutional, and considering that the Supreme Court has already ruled that way, what kind of legislation are they expecting to come up with that wouldn't just be struck down again?

Obviously, when it passes huge bills full of irrelevant provisions, Congress is not functioning the way it should. But any President could use his flat veto power to stop that if he dared. He could just declare that he is going to veto any bill that contains provisions not relative to its main purpose, and then make sure Congress understands that he is not bluffing.

I also am sympathetic to the view that undeclared wars are unconstitutional, but that's really another topic.

[ProudMormon]

One incarnation of it WAS unconstitutional. That doesn't mean a constitutional line-item veto can't exist.

Congress already has its own "line-item veto" in conferencing. Each house passes their own bill, then they conference together and hammer out a compromise. Then each house has to re-vote for it.

Why can't Obama do the same? They send him a bill, he marks it up a bit to create a "compromise" that's acceptable to him, and he sends it back to be voted on by both houses? Nothing unconstitutional about that.

[JDJase]

So you propose Congress pass a bill and send it to the president, he takes the things out that he doesn't want, and then sends it BACK to Congress to vote on a bill that was now depleted of items they wanted?

No way that'll happen.

The ONLY way is a constitutional amendment.

[got2Bkidding]

The SC decided as it did because there is no legislation in place for it.
It's perfectly legal at the state level where legislatures have made it so.
If the federal legislature passed a LIV it would become law and therefore the SC would have to rule it legal.

[JDJase]

um try learning something about constitutional law you fool.

there WAS indeed legislation for line item veto, called -- you guessed it! -- the Line Item Veto Act of 1996. SCOTUS struck down the legislation.

The Supreme Court STRIKES DOWN LEGISLATION.

If you KNOW NOTHING about Constitutional Law, DO NOT COMMENT

[JDJase]

um try learning something about constitutional law you fool.

there WAS indeed legislation for line item veto, called -- you guessed it! -- the Line Item Veto Act of 1996. SCOTUS struck down the legislation.

The Supreme Court STRIKES DOWN LEGISLATION, It's called judicial review. Just because Congress passes a law DOES NOT make it constitutional.

People who KNOW NOTHING about Constitutional Law should not comment on it

[Daniboy]

There's no pork in these bills-just ask Obama. But I'm sure Nancy and Harry would be glad to give up their pork if they had any. Remember it's only those Repubs who believe in pork!

[JDJase]

Well, afterall, it is the Republicans that had the line-item veto struck down (thanks a lot Mayor Giuliani!)