Trump tweets:
As a matter of National Security I've signed the Omnibus Spending Bill. I say to Congress: I will NEVER sign another bill like this again. To prevent this omnibus situation from ever happening again, I'm calling on Congress to give me a line-item veto for all govt spending bills!
Is there a plan for writing line-item-veto legislation in a new way that will be constitutional this time or is Trump hoping the Supreme Court will overrule
Clinton v. New York or is this all just a lot of ultimately futile political theater?
The Court... explained that under the Presentment Clause, legislation that passes both Houses of Congress must either be entirely approved (i.e. signed) or rejected (i.e. vetoed) by the President. The Court held that by canceling only selected portions of the bills at issue, under authority granted him by the Act, the President in effect "amended" the laws before him. Such discretion, the Court concluded, violated the "finely wrought" legislative procedures of Article I as envisioned by the Framers.
Full text of the case
here.
Posts
64 comments:
Taken to it's logical conclusion, a president could, through careful veto, craft completely new legislation from whatever's on his desk.
Proposed constitutional amendment: bills shall be of a single subject.
That should solve the problem.
Its a perfect talking point for him. He can point to these boondoggles, demand it.
Both the Legislatute and Judiciary can be blamed. 100% winning every time.
The President may not have a line-item veto right, but he can establish budgetary restraints in the agencies under his authority. A budget sets a limit, it does not determine an outcome. Just because you can, doesn't mean you must, or even should.
There is already a method that would allow much of unobjectionable appropriations to go forward without having to shut down the government because of a few objectionable ones. Pass several appropriation bills according to department, rather than one omnibus. Plus, this method has the advantage of being existing law. All that Congress needs to do is FOLLOW THE LAW.
Trump is playing you. Did he do anything to rally the country against any spending in this bill? Did he even bother to do one tweet? He was MIA. He is an obvious bullshitter. But his base will lap it up.
Nixon tried impounding funds appropriated by Congress. I can't remember the legal outcome, but it didn't help his friendless position in Washington.
Rude of Congress to pass a horrible budget buster and then leave town for 2 weeks. When were the funds going to run out?
Mr Reagan spoke about a line item veto many times. Was he asking for a constitutional amendment?
It worked great under Clinton, and Congress should put forth an Amendment to the Constitution to put this problem to rest.
Is Trump going to go to the country and fight for a new amendment to the Constitution giving the president a line item veto? Of course he won’t. We will not hear about it until next year. He just signed the biggest budget busting bill in the history of this nation. But somehow he is not to blame. His shit eating base will eat it up being the dumbasses they are.
But his base will lap it up.
His base is throwing a shit fit right now.
When were the funds going to run out?
The funds ran out in 1929. Since 1934 the funds never run out.
It is my understanding that Trump essentially has a line item veto by means of this being an Omnibus emergency spending package, and not an actual budget.
Why not ? California gets a line item veto on Immigration Law.
If Trump learned anything from this?
It's that he needs to be fully engaged in the next budget process from Day One.
If he didn't learn anything? He's a one-term President.
Proposed constitutional amendment: bills shall be of a single subject.
And no longer than three typed pages, double spaced.
His shit eating base will eat it up being the dumbasses they are.
You're not very smart, are you?
The only people pissed off at this budget are his base.
Among the shit eaters is a dangerous place for Now I Know.
As I suggested earlier, if departments have staggered budget periods will be effective line item veto.
Or after veto Treasury can take out payday loans from the Fed.
The lack of a line item veto is the reason for omnibus bills.
I think it was Wisconsin or some state up there where the governor could veto words and phrases or even letters from bills, until some court stopped him.
I'll give Trump credit for recognizing his base is frustrated and angry over the budget. He has a second change coming up in September. I hope he will not make the same mistake twice.
This statement is a first step in putting Congress on notice. The Republican base needs to light a fire under their representatives. Congress will need to pass a new budget just before the election. The clock is running (while Congress takes a recess.)
There is indeed a plan for writing line-item-veto legislation that will be constitutional this time. It's called "Article Five of the United States Constitution." But it's not new.
The question that occurred to me upon reading this is wondering just what national security situation was compromised by the bill not passing? In other words - what don't we know going on in that dimension?
Of course, it could just be ass covering, but I'm curious if it isn't.
The real answer, as mentioned above, is for Congress to do its job and pass departmental appropriations. Way too much to expect.
Line item veto is sorely needed in today's climate, but it is one of those things that is great if your ox isn't being gored and horrible if it is. Congress needs to do the job that the Framers intended it to do.
A line item veto would require 60 votes in the Senate and the Democrats will NEVER agree to agree to give Trump that power.
Even if you had 65 Republicans, they would find Six R senators like Miss Lindsey, McCain, Flake, Collins, etc. to join the D's and defeat it.
This is all just ridiculous excuse making by Trump. He didn't even Veto the bill or fight.
Would a shut down actually stop cash flow to anything? E.g. the judiciary? Or is it all theater?
As for the SCOTUS "precedent" - we all know what's worth.
What the SCOTUS thinks today is whatever King Kennedy desires and what will help the Left.
The four D's - Ginsburg, Kagan, Sotomeyer, and Breyer almost always vote as a bloc and their votes can be forecasted with accuracy based on which side helps the D's or is the most Left.
These 2000 page Reconciliations are a feature not a bug to McConnell and Ryan. This allows them to hand out the pork, give the D's what they want without a fight, and provide a ready excuse for their base.
"We couldn't do nuthin' - we had to increase spending and please Chuck Schumer because otherwise a shutdown!"
It'll keep on happening all long the R's keep electing peeps like McConnell and Ryan.
Or is it all theater?
They could declare Martial Law and Suspend the Constitution.
Proposed constitutional amendment: bills shall be of a single subject.
That was in the Confederate constitution. Really. An example of a very bad thing (lots of words in that document guaranteeing slavery, for instance) that somehow managed to have a stray good idea on the margin.
is this all just a lot of ultimately futile political theater?
Yes.
I'm no Constitutional scholar, but I seem to remember talk of needing a amendment to the Constitution before there could be a line item veto the last time this was brought up. I also think it is a horrible idea since it would, in fact, blur the lines between the executive and legislative branches. The system is pretty broken right now, and has been for quite some time, breaking it further isn't the way to fix it. Passing 2000 page omnibus spending bills that include non-spending related items while going years without congress actually doing its actual job, proposing a budget, is symptomatic of just how decadent and toadying to the donor class the political class has become. At least we're not as bad as Britain, yet. Throwing people in jail for crime-think. But its coming.
Nixon tried impounding funds appropriated by Congress. I can't remember the legal outcome,
I remember hearing that he lost a court case on that. But I'm not sure, nor am I clear on how to look it up.
Mattis said the military had to have an actual budget in order to do what they need.
https://www.voanews.com/a/mattis-united-states-defense-strategy-at-risk-amid-another-budget-fight/4241820.html
With Chuck Schumer's sticky splooge dripping from him, Donald Trump suddenly wished he'd had the protection of a line-item veto.
“finely wrought”
Snicker.
When did the democrat party become a party that openly cheers on corruption?
Earnest Prole said...
With Chuck Schumer's sticky splooge dripping from him, Donald Trump suddenly wished he'd had the protection of a line-item veto.
Notice the leftists are exultant. They really don't care how shitty DC is and how corrupt they are as long as Trump loses.
We see how you are acting right now.
Does the President have the authority to refuse to spend money as directed by Congress. I know that he can't be able to spend unauthorized funds, but if the Congress authorizes money to go for a certain purpose, does he have to spend it? I seem to recall this was litigated during the Nixon administration.
Does the President have the authority to refuse to spend money as directed by Congress
It depends. If the president is Republican, then no. If Democrat, then yes. Congress appropriated tons of money to be spent to enforce various laws, which Obama then simply refused to enforce, e.g. immigration laws, or which he slow-walked in actually spending the funds, effectively not spending the money at all.
Now I Know said: "Trump is playing you. Did he do anything to rally the country against any spending in this bill? Did he even bother to do one tweet? He was MIA. He is an obvious bullshitter. But his base will lap it up."
As to your points:
Yes. No. No. Yes. Probably yes. Not necessarily.
We agree on so many points, yet I suspect that you are much happier with the government spending absurd amounts of money than I am.
Didn't get anything on the Republican wish list. Unfortunately my congress critter is safe. That is one way to avoid a backlash from the voters.
Leora and others: The President cannot refuse to spend money appropriated by Congress -- prior to 1974, Presidents could do this, but COngress passed a law removing that authority from the President and that law was upheld by the Supreme court. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impoundment_of_appropriated_funds Congress passed a law authorizing the line item veto in 1993; it was used by President Clinton; the SUpreme COurt declared the law unconstitutional. That SC decision is the one Althouse links to. In my opinion, that supreme court decision doesn't really have much wiggle room for re-writing the law in a way that would pass constitutional muster; therefore (in my opinion) the line item veto would require a constitutional amendment.
Understand that in this situation, if Trump had not signed the Omnibus Bill, Congress & a willing media would have hung the resulting government shutdown around his neck like a fetid albatross. In this case, Trump's hands were tied.
As EW points out to NIK, the conservative base is livid about this budget. NIK, of course, never listens to conservative talk radio or else he'd know. It's been topic number one since early week, & the hosts & callers are turning so red in the face you can hear it over the radio.
Strangely enough, this will probably cement, not weaken Trump's hold on the Republican Party. Time & time again, Congressional Republicans have proven themselves absolutely useless at defending conservative principles (e.g. after all this time, having no idea what to replace ObamaCare with). Trump, for all his faults, at least seems to be able to fight for something a good part of the time.
The leftists are exultant.
Indeed they are. I, on the other hand, am here to help. If Trump didn’t want to be Congress’ splooge stooge, he should have taken care not to drop the soap in the prison shower. Trump knew for weeks that the shutdown deadline was looming; if he wanted to prevail, he needed to say, over and over, something in the neighborhood of what I offered yesterday:
“My fellow Americans: I was elected with the promise to secure our borders, and I will not fail you like so many others have. If the omnibus spending bill fails to include full funding for my Big Beautiful Border Wall, I will not sign it, period. Please contact Mr. Ryan and Mr. McConnell now and remind them that unlike HW Bush, when I say ‘read my lips’ I mean it.”
And given Trump's magical persuasion skills, I'd bet he could have phrased it a hell of a lot better than that.
But if it's just a statute that says the President must spend the money, Congress can certainly amend or repeal it to give that authority back.
Is there an executive discretion that corresponds to prosecutorial discretion?
The latter right would manifest as the former in the President selectively following the laws legislated by Congress, not with respect to criminal activity, but with respect to financial discipline. Why is finance, credit, and debt the holy grail of Democrat politics?
When did the democrat party become a party that openly cheers on corruption?
Once you go Pro-Choice, selective, opportunistic, and congruent, the collateral consequence of a philosophy with principles that are internally, externally, and mutually inconsistent, is progressive dysfunction and corruption.
"In this case, Trump's hands were tied."
Bullshit. He could have vetoed. Let Schumer and Pelosi defend not funding a border fence, cutting INS enforcement, and spending $10 billion on tunnel that only benefits NYC, and giving $500 million to Planned Parenthood.
Judas Priest. Always the Lame Losers come up out with the Establishment crap. We're been hearing this nonsense for 20 years. ALWAYS the R's must defer to the D's - otherwise Blah, blah.
We could have gotten the same budget with HIllary as POTUS.
When Obama and Clinton were POTUS - then it was "Oh gosh, we have to surrender because they will veto".
When Bush was POTUS - it was "Oh gosh, we need to surrender because Dems control the Senate (or the house)"
When R's control the POTUS, the Senate, and the House (2005-2007 and now) its "Gosh, we have to surrender because we need 60 votes in the Senate"
What's the point of electing R's? We'll never get to 60 R Senators. Might as well just let the D's run the whole thing. The R's surrender ANYWAY.
@rcocean,
Bullshit. He could have vetoed
Yes, in theory he could have.
But then, what? he gets left to twist in the wind over the government shut down while Congress takes their sweet forever to work out a new budget, taking their time while someone else takes the blame.
Trump could have vetoed, & he then would have given Congress, both Republicans & Dems, the sledge hammer with which to shatter his presidency.
It's not Trump that's the problem here, RC. It's the Republican Congress. What we do about it is another question.
Proposed strategy:
Offer bonuses to federal employees for saving taxpayer money, with the provision that any employee who accepts the bonus must leave and never take another government job again.
The money gets spent, in bonuses, as Congress required. And the federal workforce gets smaller on purpose. Create the incentives. People respond to incentives.
(Yes, the above needs tweaks. I am spit balling.)
Before Nixon presidents didn't veto things, they simply sequestered funds they didn't want to spend. Worked fine for both Democrat and Republican presidents. The left HATED Nixon, and suit was brought to force him to spend all allocated monies. So sequesterization died because of course the Supreme Court sided with the Democrats at the time because Nixon was such a singularly evil individual. He was so evil that early in his career he had the nerve to call Communists Communists! Can you imagine that?
Leora: "But if it's just a statute that says the President must spend the money, Congress can certainly amend or repeal it to give that authority back." I agree. But, in a bi-partisan way, COngress does not want to cede some of its current power to the President. Dems don't want Trump to decide not to spend appropriated funds (say on food stamps); Reps don't want Obama to decide not to spend appropriated funds (say on border security). I guess the point is "Congress gives Trump line item veto" is probably even more unrealistic than "Congress restores Presidential authority to impound appropriated funds."
Is there a plan for writing line-item-veto legislation in a new way that will be constitutional this time or is Trump hoping the Supreme Court will overrule Clinton v. New York or is this all just a lot of ultimately futile political theater?
Embrace the power of and.
Toward the end of the Carter administration, inflation was very high. Paul Volcker, the head of the Federal Reserve system, said that the Fed was committed to bringing down the growth in the amount of money and the resulting inflation. He did and the economy went into irecession even as interest rates stayed high for a while. There was a lot of pressure to reverse course; lots of people believed he wasn't THAT committed. Turns out he was, and from then on the Fed had "credibility." It would do what it said even if it was politically unpopular.
Donald Trump could announce that from now on, he will only sign appropriation bills for individual departments. Of course, no one would believe him. He would have to prepare the ground with explanations and threats well beforehand, and then actually veto the next omnibus bill. Much harder, he would have to avoid caving in the weeks and maybe months after his bluff is called. But if he didn't, he would have "credibility" and would only get departmental bills from then on.
Blogger JohnAnnArbor said...That was in the Confederate constitution. Really. An example of a very bad thing (lots of words in that document guaranteeing slavery, for instance) that somehow managed to have a stray good idea on the margin.
Thanks for the historical precedent. I did not know that. I'll file it next too "Hitler gave the world an great car."
If it is possible to slow walk the spending can this budget amounts be stretched out over longer period? Trump would still be spending appropriated funds.
Its a perfect talking point for him. He can point to these boondoggles, demand it.
Both the Legislatute and Judiciary can be blamed. 100% winning every time.
He signed the bill, he deserves the blame.
A return to the Frankenstein veto? (h/t Dennis York).
So how would this apply to the signing statements used by the last administration, which were done for the same effect? Why did no one bring up the Presentment clause then?
Post a Comment