The Supreme Court ruled that 'line item vetoes' are unconstitutional.

Question

Since our Congress is hardly likely to amend the Constitution to BAN pork and special interest appropriations, nor are they likely to rescind the 17th Amendment, what is the solution to overspending?

Answer 1

That is an interesting question. It is my belief that the founders never intended a Bill to be "multi-purpose", in the sense of a single Bill addressing completely unrelated issues. It just wouldn't have occured to them, and thus there isn't a prohibition against such in the Constitution.

Sensibly, a Bill should address just the one purpose of that Bill. If there is another purpose to address, then let there be another Bill.

Be that as it may. Given the current situation, even a line-item veto won't guarantee zero pork. If certain line-item pork is tasty to a President, he's not going to veto it (unless we get a President of real conscience in the oval office ... which ... well, that would be the ideal.)

So, barring having a President of common sense and constitutional understanding in the White House, here's my crazy idea. I think that a case could be made before the Supreme Court, that since line-item veto is unconstitutional, it perforce means that multi-purpose Bills are unconstitutional as well, because they put the President in the position of being unable to effectively perform his constitutional duty -- that is, to either veto the singular purpose or language of a particular Bill, or not.

Answer 2

Why ban pork?  If you ban pork then who would be in congress?  No one, so let it stay!  That "pork" benefits you a lot more than you think it does :)

Secondly, the line item veto was ruled Unconstitutional a long time ago during the Clinton era.  So why bring it up now?

If we do not listen to the supreme court, and go against their ruling then that sets a nasty prescient that says we do not have to listen to anything they say.  So when it matters we have no one to protect us.

Also the Line item veto is un-constitutional because the founding fathers decided it was in the best interest of the state to not have a king.  If you have a single individual who can mold and create legislation as he wants it to be, then we no longer have a democracy.

THINK ABOUT THESE THINGS BEFORE YOU POST THEM!  

Answer 3

We really need to get line item vetoes back. President Bush needs just to start doing them. Also, we need to allow the President the opposite of a line item veto. We need to allow the President to add and change lines as well.

Answer 4

Vote for candidates to Congress who will not overspend.

Answer 5

The solution to overspending is a President with guts.If you get a Budget with a ton of Pork,which is all of the Budgets for the past 40 years,just Veto the whole thing.Make it clear that the only way they will ever get a Budget passed is to send a "Pork Free" balanced Budget in,or override the Veto. At least that way the President can go on the Air and make it clear exactly who is responsible for the wasteful spending.

Of course Bush hasn't Vetoed hardly anything,because he doesn't mind the Wasteful Spending by Congress,as long as they approve his Wasteful Spending.At this point the best solution is to vote out every single current holder of any Elected Office,from your local Mayors office all the way to the White House,and simply start over.But the American people don't have the guts for it,they're cowards who would rather be led around like sheep.All I can say about that is,Just don't complain to me when you realize they have led you to the slaughterhouse!!

YTP