March 10, 2006

Walk the Line

by PG

Though it will add another lyric to I'm Just a Bill, President Bush's proposal for "the Legislative Line Item Veto Act of 2006" already is garnering praise even from those who are not Administration acolytes. Bush's idea looks like expedited rescission:

In 1992, 1993, and 1994, the House passed legislation to make it easier for the President to rescind funds. Instead of allowing Congress to ignore presidential recommendations for rescissions, “expedited rescission” required at least one House to vote on his proposals. If one house disapproved, the other House need take no action because approval by both houses would be necessary. Expedited rescission attracted support from some lawmakers who thought it would transfer less congressional power to the President than other reform ideas. The Senate took no action on the expedited rescission bills passed by the House, preferring to explore two other approaches: “enhanced rescission” and “separate enrollment.”
Senate and House bill summaries and files -- my glance at the lists of co-sponsors didn't turn up many Democrats whom I knew (Mark Udall in the House, John Kerry in the Senate).

UPDATE: Speaking of surprising allies, the line-ups on Clinton v. City of New York -- the case on the constitutionality of the Line Item Veto Act of 1997 Act -- turn the cliched Rehnquist Court blocs upside down: "Stevens, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Rehnquist, C. J., and Kennedy, Souter, Thomas, and Ginsburg, JJ., joined. Kennedy, J., filed a concurring opinion. Scalia, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part, in which O’Connor, J., joined, and in which Breyer, J., joined as to Part III. Breyer, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which O’Connor and Scalia, JJ., joined as to Part III."

March 10, 2006 03:24 PM | TrackBack
Comments

I'm still baffled as to why people think this proposal satisfies Clinton v. New York. The Court made it clear that Article 1, Section 7 "means what says and says what it means," and this scheme is outside that framework in exactly the same way as the original LIV was. Merely diluting the hurdle from two-thirds to a simple majority is irrelevant.

Posted by: KipEsquire at March 10, 2006 04:41 PM
Post a comment









Remember personal info?






Sitting in Review
Armen (e-mail) #
PG (e-mail) #
Dave (e-mail) #
Craig (e-mail) #
About Us
Senior Status
Chris Geidner #
Jeremy Blachman #
Nick Morgan #
Wings & Vodka #
Recent Opinions
Symposia
Persuasive Authority
De Novo Reporter
Research


Powered by
Movable Type 3.21