johnwk
March 8th, 2006, 01:24 AM
President Bush would have us believe if “line item veto” power were available to him, he would tackle the problem of “special interest projects“. But the truth is, if line item veto were available to the executive branch of government, special interest projects favored by the president would prevail over those disfavored by the president. But I’m getting a little ahead of myself, so, let us start from the beginning.
Article 1, Section 7 of the Constitution contains a precise procedure for the president to follow regarding a bill having passed both houses of Congress ''__if he approve, he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated__'' No allowance has been granted to the president by the Constitution to alter a bill to his own liking by striking some parts and leaving others, and then signing into law a bill so amended.
Likewise, no provision can be pointed to in our Constitution granting power to Congress to overrule the Article 1, Section 7 procedure and vest in the president a power to alter bills before signing them into law.
Madison`s Notes on the Convention of 1787 informs us that only three of the original 13 states allowed their executive to exercise a veto power (Massachusetts, South Carolina and New York), And, in discussing veto power, Benjamin Franklin, on June 4 of the Constitutional Convention, reminds the delegates how veto power had been exercised by royal governors and why the convention should not grant such power to the president:
''The negative of the governor was constantly made use of to extort money. No good law whatever could be passed without a private bargain with him. An increase of salary or some donation, was always made a condition; till at last, it became the regular practice to have orders in his favor on the treasury presented along with the bills to be signed, so that he might actually receive the former before he should sign the latter. When the Indians were scalping the Western people, and notice of it arrived, the concurrence of the governor in the means of self-defense could not be got, until it was agreed that the people were to fight for the security of his property, whilst he was to have no share of the burdens of taxation.''
The convention finally did reach a compromise, and granted veto power to the president, but only in the limited fashion as detailed in Article 1, Section 7, which preempts the kind of presidential blackmail the innovative line-item veto proposal most assuredly would resurrect.
If the proponents of the line-item veto, including our President, want to control reckless spending and compel Congress to start practicing sound fiscal policy, they ought to be promoting our Founding Father’s plan, and in particular, the founder’s method of extinguishing deficits created by Congress which would make every member of Congress, especially big spending Republicans, immediately accountable to their State Governor and Legislature should Congress borrow to meet its expenses during the course of a fiscal year.
Under the founders plan, if insufficient revenue was raised by Congress from its normal taxing powers, and Congress borrowed to meet its exigencies, Congress was then intended to lay a direct tax apportioned among the states for the total sum of the deficit created.
Few people realize the Founding Fathers provided a FAIR SHARE FORMULA in our Constitution to extinguish deficits created by Congress. Under this direct apportioned tax, each state was intended to be responsible for raising a share of the deficit created by Congress based upon its number of votes in Congress___ representation with proportional obligation__ a constitutionally mandated fair share formula which our big spenders in Congress and the friends of a big socialist government dread with a passion!
You see, under the Founder’s plan there are no loopholes, no manipulation, and, those state congressional delegations with the biggest mouth in Congress, who would dare use their large voting strength to squander federal revenue, create big government or send our money to distant lands through a “United Nations” [a money laundering operation] were to bring home to their State Governor a bill for the largest share of the direct tax which the Governor and State Legislature would then be responsible for raising and then depositing into the treasury of the United States.
Picture for a moment the expression on the faces of the Governor of New York and the New York State Legislature, if New York should receive a bill for its apportioned share [29/435] of the 2005 federal deficit. This threat would create a compelling incentive for the Governor of each state, and the various state legislatures, to keep a jealous eye on the spending habits of their Congressional Delegation . . . it would require the fiscal accountability which the state governments once demanded from their Senate and House Members!
For a $20 million direct tax being imposed upon the states in 1861, and the amounts required to be paid by each of the various states, see HERE (http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=012/llsl012.db&recNum=326) and use the buttons at the bottom of the page to go forward and backward
Bottom line: we don’t need a line item veto power being exercise by the executive branch of government which merely allows the president to determine which pork he/she may favor, and may also be used by the president to blackmail the Legislature to adopt special interest legislation which the president may want. What we need is to return to our Founding Fathers original tax plan, with its various checks and balances, its method to extinguish annual deficits, and that may be accomplish by adopting the following words to our Constitution which would bring us back to the original plan:
The Sixteenth Amendment is hereby repealed and Congress is henceforth forbidden to lay “any” tax or burden calculated from profits, gains, interest, salaries, wages, tips, inheritances or any other lawfully realized money.
For a more complete summary of the Founding Father’s original tax plan CLICK HERE (http://usafoundingfathers.blogspot.com/) and scroll down to:
American Constitutional Research Service Before the
Committee on Ways and Means
United States House of Representatives
June 1995
Regards,
JWK
“…..with all these blessings, what more is necessary to make us a happy and a prosperous people? Still one thing more, fellow-citizens—a wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government, and this is necessary to close the circle of our felicities“. Thomas Jefferson, First Inaugural Address
Article 1, Section 7 of the Constitution contains a precise procedure for the president to follow regarding a bill having passed both houses of Congress ''__if he approve, he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated__'' No allowance has been granted to the president by the Constitution to alter a bill to his own liking by striking some parts and leaving others, and then signing into law a bill so amended.
Likewise, no provision can be pointed to in our Constitution granting power to Congress to overrule the Article 1, Section 7 procedure and vest in the president a power to alter bills before signing them into law.
Madison`s Notes on the Convention of 1787 informs us that only three of the original 13 states allowed their executive to exercise a veto power (Massachusetts, South Carolina and New York), And, in discussing veto power, Benjamin Franklin, on June 4 of the Constitutional Convention, reminds the delegates how veto power had been exercised by royal governors and why the convention should not grant such power to the president:
''The negative of the governor was constantly made use of to extort money. No good law whatever could be passed without a private bargain with him. An increase of salary or some donation, was always made a condition; till at last, it became the regular practice to have orders in his favor on the treasury presented along with the bills to be signed, so that he might actually receive the former before he should sign the latter. When the Indians were scalping the Western people, and notice of it arrived, the concurrence of the governor in the means of self-defense could not be got, until it was agreed that the people were to fight for the security of his property, whilst he was to have no share of the burdens of taxation.''
The convention finally did reach a compromise, and granted veto power to the president, but only in the limited fashion as detailed in Article 1, Section 7, which preempts the kind of presidential blackmail the innovative line-item veto proposal most assuredly would resurrect.
If the proponents of the line-item veto, including our President, want to control reckless spending and compel Congress to start practicing sound fiscal policy, they ought to be promoting our Founding Father’s plan, and in particular, the founder’s method of extinguishing deficits created by Congress which would make every member of Congress, especially big spending Republicans, immediately accountable to their State Governor and Legislature should Congress borrow to meet its expenses during the course of a fiscal year.
Under the founders plan, if insufficient revenue was raised by Congress from its normal taxing powers, and Congress borrowed to meet its exigencies, Congress was then intended to lay a direct tax apportioned among the states for the total sum of the deficit created.
Few people realize the Founding Fathers provided a FAIR SHARE FORMULA in our Constitution to extinguish deficits created by Congress. Under this direct apportioned tax, each state was intended to be responsible for raising a share of the deficit created by Congress based upon its number of votes in Congress___ representation with proportional obligation__ a constitutionally mandated fair share formula which our big spenders in Congress and the friends of a big socialist government dread with a passion!
You see, under the Founder’s plan there are no loopholes, no manipulation, and, those state congressional delegations with the biggest mouth in Congress, who would dare use their large voting strength to squander federal revenue, create big government or send our money to distant lands through a “United Nations” [a money laundering operation] were to bring home to their State Governor a bill for the largest share of the direct tax which the Governor and State Legislature would then be responsible for raising and then depositing into the treasury of the United States.
Picture for a moment the expression on the faces of the Governor of New York and the New York State Legislature, if New York should receive a bill for its apportioned share [29/435] of the 2005 federal deficit. This threat would create a compelling incentive for the Governor of each state, and the various state legislatures, to keep a jealous eye on the spending habits of their Congressional Delegation . . . it would require the fiscal accountability which the state governments once demanded from their Senate and House Members!
For a $20 million direct tax being imposed upon the states in 1861, and the amounts required to be paid by each of the various states, see HERE (http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=012/llsl012.db&recNum=326) and use the buttons at the bottom of the page to go forward and backward
Bottom line: we don’t need a line item veto power being exercise by the executive branch of government which merely allows the president to determine which pork he/she may favor, and may also be used by the president to blackmail the Legislature to adopt special interest legislation which the president may want. What we need is to return to our Founding Fathers original tax plan, with its various checks and balances, its method to extinguish annual deficits, and that may be accomplish by adopting the following words to our Constitution which would bring us back to the original plan:
The Sixteenth Amendment is hereby repealed and Congress is henceforth forbidden to lay “any” tax or burden calculated from profits, gains, interest, salaries, wages, tips, inheritances or any other lawfully realized money.
For a more complete summary of the Founding Father’s original tax plan CLICK HERE (http://usafoundingfathers.blogspot.com/) and scroll down to:
American Constitutional Research Service Before the
Committee on Ways and Means
United States House of Representatives
June 1995
Regards,
JWK
“…..with all these blessings, what more is necessary to make us a happy and a prosperous people? Still one thing more, fellow-citizens—a wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government, and this is necessary to close the circle of our felicities“. Thomas Jefferson, First Inaugural Address