The White House resurrects the line-item veto

February 7, 2006

When the president brought up the line-item veto in the State of the Union, I more or less assumed it was empty rhetoric. Surely the president’s lawyers remember that Congress already passed a line-item veto, Clinton signed it in 1996, and the Supreme Court ruled in 1998 that it’s unconstitutional. Why bring up a tool the president can’t use?

Of course, the Bush White House is unconcerned with pesky details like Supreme Court rulings. These guys seriously expect Congress to pass the same measure again.

At a press briefing Office of Management and Budget Director Joshua Bolten held yesterday, he reiterated the need for the line-item veto.

“On our side, the President has asked for a line-item veto, which would make it possible for him to step into an appropriations bill once it’s been enacted, and take out the elements that at least the executive branch considers are ill advised, not well supported by policy.”

And according to Roll Call, this is a serious push.

Bolten did not provide details of the administration proposal, but according to budget documents released Monday, Bush will seek to tie the line-item veto to deficit reduction.

“This proposal would give the President the authority to defer new spending whenever the President determines the spending is not an essential Government priority,” the document states. “All savings from the line-item veto would be used for deficit reduction, and they could not be applied to augment other spending.”

But according to Louis Fisher, an expert on the line-item veto at the Congressional Research Service, the budget language does not differ from the Bush administration’s previous attempts to impose a line-item veto.

“They’ve been repeating this language year after year,” said Fisher, the author of “Congressional Abdication on War and Spending” and “Presidential Spending Power.”

I find so many of the White House’s beliefs confusing, but this one really doesn’t make any sense. I know the Bush gang’s attitude towards the Constitution falls far short of reverence, but if the Supreme Court just recently said a tool is unconstitutional, why waste time working on resurrecting the exact same tool now?

The Shrub/Turdblossom Administration doesn’t give a damn about policy or constitutionality, just politics. Mention “line-item veto” and the sheep all go “baa-aaa-aaa”. That’s all GOP care about.

Worst of it is, I think they’re onto something.

  • Precisely, TCM – they bought themselves a fancy new car, now they’d like to take it out for a drive and see if it lives up to their expectations when they step on the gas and run it through some curves.

  • Well, at least you all see where this is heading…in case you got some fancy idea that putting Alito and Roberts on the court wasnt really going to matter, guess again. You gotta hand it to these people, they really know how to wield power. Damn shame that power now only comes in the form of a club. I tell you, if we dont impeach this guy, this country as we knew it is finished. I really think the only thing that can save the Democrats, and this country, is a financial crisis. And the chances are looking better each day that one is coming down the pipe before the chimp leaves office.

  • Why? Because you’ve just stocked the Supreme Court with friendly justices. First, it’s easy enough for the government to appeal all the way to the Supreme Court. Then it takes what? 4 justices to choose to hear a case? Who wants to bet those four won’t be Scalia, Thomas, Roberts, and Alito? I’m not taking that bet.

    Once it gets to the Supreme Court, you can bet that Thomas, who gives no weight to precedent, will find a reason to reverse himself and support the line-item veto, joining Scalia and Breyer, who voted for it in 98 and are bound by consistency, and Roberts and Alito, who will defer to this president in all things.

  • Rian and Zeitgeist, you’re each in your own way pointing to the Big Political Invisible that I neglected to elucidate: namely, that to Rove EVERYTHING is political. The SC (as with every other governmental institution) is not an august deliberative body with rules and traditions, but is a political constuency.

  • Oops. Source info.

    http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/06/25/scotus.lineitem/

    6 voted to overrule the line-item veto in 1998: Stevens, Rehnquist, Kennedy, Souter, Thomas, and Ginsburg.

    3 voted in favor of keeping the law: Scalia, Breyer, and O’Connor.

    Scalia has the luxury of not even having to reverse himself to make this happen. He supported the line-item veto even when Clinton was president!

  • Just think of how little our country will resemble the original constitutional plan if we give presidents this tool. Presidents will then get to parcel out pork for their friends and withhold it from their enemies. In addition to the havoc that could do to opposition party members voting against their conwscience, in order to buy presidential favor, the general public would probably come to see the pointlessness of electing people of the opposition party to Congress. Congress would become even more of a rubber stamp than it did in the 20th century.

    Let’s see Congress design legislation that will police porkbarrel politics, instead.

  • I personally think the Bushites forgot that Congress granted the line-item veto in ’96 and the ’98 Supreme Court took it away. They were just looking for ways to sound Reaganesque, and one of them suggested resuscitating the annual wheeze for the line-item veto. “Yeaaaaahhhh,” they all echoed.

    —
    HRlaughed

  • Why? Because you’ve just stocked the Supreme Court with friendly justices.

    A quick note: when the Supreme Court ruled against the line-item veto, it was a 6-3 ruling. One of the six was Rehnquist. In order for Bush to think that he could get it through the court now, he’d need Roberts to vote the way Rehnquist did, Alito to replace and reverse O’Connor’s vote, and have either Breyer or Scalia switch.

    It’s not impossible, but it seems like something Bush might want to try after getting another justice onto the court.

  • Here’s a link to the CNN article about the 1998 decision: http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/06/25/scotus.lineitem/

    It was a 6-to-3 decision to strike down the line-item veto as unconstitutional. In the majority were: Chief Justice William Rehnquist and Justices Anthony Kennedy, David Souter, Clarence Thomas, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and John Paul Stevens (who the opinion for the majority). The dissenters were: Justices Antonin Scalia, Sandra Day O’Connor and Stephen Breyer.

    If Clarence Thomas could flip over, then Stephen Breyer could flip back.

  • Oh for pity’s sake! I thought they decided they didn’t like it when Clinton actually tried to use it….. Oh I forget they don’t envision a time when they don’t control all 3 branches (and yes there are 3 for any Koo Aid drinkers out there reading this) of government.

  • CB,

    A quick note: when the Supreme Court ruled against the line-item veto, it was a 6-3 ruling. One of the six was Rehnquist. In order for Bush to think that he could get it through the court now, he’d need Roberts to vote the way Rehnquist did, Alito to replace and reverse O’Connor’s vote, and have either Breyer or Scalia switch.

    It’s not impossible, but it seems like something Bush might want to try after getting another justice onto the court.

    No no, in 1998, Rehnquist voted to overturn the line-item veto. Rehnquist, Stevens, Thomas, Ginsburg, Kennedy, and Souter ruled the line-item veto unconstitutional. Scalia, O’Connor, and Breyer voted in favor of keeping the line-item veto law.

    Bush needs the numbers to go the other way and add two justices to Scalia, O’Connor, and Breyer’s dissent to get a “constitutional” line-item veto.

  • No no, in 1998, Rehnquist voted to overturn the line-item veto. Rehnquist, Stevens, Thomas, Ginsburg, Kennedy, and Souter ruled the line-item veto unconstitutional. Scalia, O’Connor, and Breyer voted in favor of keeping the line-item veto law.

    Damn, I got it backwards. Forget my #10 comment; Rian’s right and I’m not. I read the ruling wrong. Sorry.

  • ET, they’re really angling for a time when they can’t hold the Congress anymore. Dems are well-positioned to start taking back seats in 2006, and Bush wants to consolidate more power now, so he can wield it against them.

    Also, there’s a possibility that we’ll see unpopular Republican presidents win elections for a long time to come, because the Electoral College favors them. The Electoral College gives greater representation to small (unpopulated) states. I think I read somewhere that after 2004, someone figured out that by collecting the electoral votes of only the smallest states, and then only by the slimmest of margins, a candidate could potentially win office with less than a quarter of the vote! And that’s with no third party competition.

  • I don’t know if Bush can get it through the supreme court or not. I figure it is maybe 50-50.

    I do know that this will be used by Bush as a partisan tool to reward those that do as they are told and punish those that don’t. This is nothing more than an attempt by the preznit to grab power in the only area his unitarian fantasy doesn’t encompass — appropriations.

    This is something the Dems should fight tooth and nail in this congress.

  • W(PE) has never vetoed ANYTHING. Why would we expect that this would change anything. If he’s not using the veto he has now, why would we give him a better one?

  • W(PE) has never vetoed ANYTHING. Why would we expect that this would change anything. If he’s not using the veto he has now, why would we give him a better one?

    To keep the ducks in a row. What Congressperson would dare go against someone who could, at their whim, cut ALL benefits to the Congressperson’s home state?

    The Line Item Veto is a tool. Used for good it cuts the fat, used for ill it garantees it.

  • Gorobei,

    Bush has always only had to deal with a (mostly) compliant, GOP-dominated Congress that has rarely passed a law he didn’t like. The GOP ruled the House since he came into office, they’ve ruled the Senate about half of that time, and it looks like after 2006 they may not rule anymore. Bush won’t find it so much to his liking when a Democrat-led Congress asks him to sign a universal health care bill or a minimum wage indexed for inflation bill or a 100 MPG by 2015 fuel efficiency standards bill.

    Re #19,

    It appears from the search results on thomas.loc.gov that the proposed line-item veto is a constitutional amendment this time. That would circumvent the courts. If it passed. But it never would. Major meh.

  • actually, folks, i think the line-item veto is a fine thing, and even if i didn’t, that breyer does is good enough for me.

    i mean, yes, it’s odd that the bush administration would make a big deal about something that the supreme court has already turned down (and my bet is, the court would refuse to hear it again this soon), but ya know, even monkeys can produce shakespeare if given enough typewriters, so just because bush is for it doesn’t mean that it’s wrong every single time.

  • Some history of the line item veto before the Supreme Court issued its decision might be instructive to those who believe it can be a valuable tool to reduce the deficit.

    After President Clinton signed the line item veto into law in 1997, the first appropriation to reach his desk was a military construction bill. Clinton attempted to eliminate 38 unrequested projects at a savings of almost $300 million. However, his line item vetoes were overridden by a vote of 347-69 in the House and 78-20 in the Senate.

    • Comments are closed.