Please help me understand whether line-item veto for the President is good or bad. (1) On the one end, we have individual laws passed by Congress. (3) On the other end we have a set of all laws and appropriations and everything the Congress has done over two years. (2) In the middle we have “bills” or relatively small packages of laws submitted to the President. What is the advantage of letting him veto the bills rather then (1) individual laws or (3) the Congress’s full output for two years?
And what is the purpose of the veto power anyway? As I discern, it is to weed out laws the President deems unenforceable, perhaps because they put two federal agencies against each other, mandating that agency A do something that agency B is ordered to fight. Am I right?
From a completely neutral perspective, allowing the line item veto means that compromises within legislation might get vetoed and only one side gets what it wants. Vetos were originally one of the lines of defense against tyranny by majority and used only in cases where legislation conflicted with the Constitution (in the mind of the President). But, slowly, the veto became just another executive power, to be used in whatever manner he sees fit.
But from a libertarian perspective, I’m not sure it matters at all.
I think it is both good and bad. For example the president could veto riders on the bill that he recognises as irrelevant, but then again he could also veto things that he doesn’t believe in not allowing the minority have any say. But overall I would say I dont think president should have the power, obvoisly it was deemed unconstituional. I think the purpose is to give the president some authority, but not to much, really its a check on the legislative branch, and an intricate part of the seperation of powers.
Arizona has a single item requirement for all bills considered and approved by the Arizona legislature. It does not mean there are no long bills, but they are confined to a single subject. It prevents the types of rider bills that are so pervasive in Congress. It also preserves the compromises reached by legislatures. The requirement also applies to initiatives and referendums. I think this would be a better approach than the line item veto. It makes the legislature deal with the real subject and allows the governor to veto or approve a bill by considering its implications on a single topic. The Arizona courts have been good about enforcing the requirement.
From a libertarian perspective, if we are to have a government, the veto is a good idea. In theory it allows the executive to strike down laws that violate individual rights so that the executive can avoid having to enforce laws and violate individual rights in the process.