NEWS
By LOS ANGELES TIMES | March 7, 2006
WASHINGTON -- President Bush asked Congress yesterday to give him limited authority to veto individual items in spending measures, resurrecting a top priority of fiscal conservatives. Expressing optimism that the measure would win congressional approval and pass court tests, the White House said its proposal took into account objections the Supreme Court had raised in 1998 when it said a version of the veto provision signed two years earlier by President Clinton was unconstitutional. In Congress, however, the outcome was less certain than presented by the White House.
NEWS
By Karen Hosler and Karen Hosler,Washington Bureau of The Sun | February 7, 1995
WASHINGTON -- The House of Representatives celebrated Ronald Reagan's 84th birthday last night with passage of a line-item veto bill, a major goal of the former president when he was in office.With a strong bipartisan majority of 294-134, the House approved and sent to the Senate the presidential tool that could remove single parts of budget legislation without rejecting the entire measure. It was one of several procedural changes promised by the Republicans' "Contract with America" as part of their drive to curb federal spending.
NEWS
By GARRY WILLS | November 20, 1992
Chicago. -- Bill Clinton, like Ronald Reagan, exercised a line-item veto while he was governor. And Mr. Clinton, like Mr. Reagan, wants to continue doing that in the presidency. Calling for the veto is a useful political symbol of opposition to congressional spending, though it is doubtful that any real economies would be effected. The record of states with the veto is not measurably more frugal than that of states without it.The argument that what is good enough for the states should be good enough for the federal government does not bear careful investigation.
NEWS
By George F. Will | March 9, 1998
WASHINGTON -- The short, unhappy life of the Line Item Veto Act of 1996 should end soon. A federal judge has declared it unconstitutional, a ruling that probably will be quickly reviewed by the Supreme Court, which should put this misbegotten law out of its misery by July.However, the court will say only that the statute conferring this veto power on the president is constitutionally flawed, as any such statute would be: A constitutional amendment would be necessary to confer such power. It is important to understand why that is so, but equally important to understand why no line-item veto should be given to the chief executive of the national government of a continental nation.
NEWS
By STEVE CHAPMAN | October 19, 2007
CHICAGO -- Mitt Romney and Rudolph W. Giuliani have many differences and something in common: Each governed a liberal place, and each, while in office, often sided with liberals on particular issues. They are both making the presidential campaign more entertaining through strenuous but unconvincing attempts to live down those youthful indiscretions. Lately, they have been arguing over the line-item veto, which lets a president excise individual spending programs without killing an entire bill.
NEWS
By Lyle Denniston and Lyle Denniston,SUN NATIONAL STAFF | February 28, 1998
WASHINGTON -- Acting speedily to get a major constitutional issue settled by this summer, the Supreme Court agreed yesterday to rule this term on the challenge to the president's new power to veto individual items in spending and tax bills.In a brief order, the court put the "line-item veto" issue on a fast track and set a hearing for April 27 -- an indication that it expects to rule before the term's end, expected in late June.Since last summer, when President Clinton began using the power given to him by Congress to veto parts of spending and tax legislation, he has used the authority against 82 items.