RSS feed for comments on this post.
The URI to TrackBack this entry is: http://poliblogger.com/wp-trackback.html?p=9510
Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>
0.095 Powered by Wordpress
Of course, Congress could simply pass each expenditure as a separate bill, which the President could then sign or veto individually.
Oh wait, that would mean passing a few million bills each year?
Go figure…
Comment by KipEsquire — Monday, March 6, 2024 @ 9:06 am
It looks to me like a repeat of that case would now be 5-4 (because I would guess Roberts would be in favor, though I would have assumed Rehnquist would have been, too, so who knows). If that is accurate, then it may not be a great stretch to think that a statute could be crafted in such a way as to get one more vote, with Scalia being the obvious target (there can be no doubt that Alito would take the same position as the justice he replaced).
Similar presidential powers in other presidential systems point to the conclusion that the item veto is a terrible idea.
Comment by Matthew Shugart — Monday, March 6, 2024 @ 9:48 am
What Part of “Unconstitutional” is Unclear?
Many people, myself included, scratched our heads when we heard President Bush ask in his most recent State of the Union Address for Congress to pass legislation granting the President the line-item veto.
We were puzzled because we had jus…
Trackback by A Stitch in Haste — Monday, March 6, 2024 @ 11:42 am
I can’t help but think that if they are willing to try it again so soon, they must know something that we don’t. Maybe they believe that the court is now configured in such a way as to let it stand. (I’m not saying that it is necessarily, I’m just saying they must now think that it is or they wouldn’t waste their time.
I’ve just never understood why the Congress was ever willing to pass the line/item veto in the first place. It would seem that it would greatly reduce their ability to bring the pork back home to their individual districts.
Comment by Jan — Tuesday, March 7, 2024 @ 8:02 am
why is it that something which seems, at least to me, blatantly unconstitutional could have been be supported by the “strict constructionist” Scalia? And now, if the court is configured correctly, then roberts & alito must be willing to disregard the constitution in this case. And yet, weren’t they made with the “strict constructionist” model also? At least that’s what they indicated in the Senate hearings.
I don’t get it.
Comment by eric — Tuesday, March 7, 2024 @ 5:11 pm