Line item veto proposal
SLevinson at law.utexas.edu
Tue Mar 7 13:33:10 PST 2006
I'd have no particular objection to such a proposal. I suppose some
formalists would argue that this requires a constitutional amendment.
From: conlawprof-bounces at lists.ucla.edu
[mailto:conlawprof-bounces at lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of
DavidEBernstein at aol.com
Sent: Tuesday, March 07, 2006 3:22 PM
To: conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu
Subject: Re: Line item veto proposal
How about a National Pork-Ridding Commission, modeled on the baseclosing
commission, to meet annually, after budgeting is through, to evaluate,
and recommend defunding of, earmarks before the money is actually spent.
Up or down vote thereafter, as with the base closings.
In a message dated 3/7/2006 4:19:12 PM Eastern Standard Time,
SLevinson at law.utexas.edu writes:
I would be far more willing to support such a proposal, which I
speaks to a real problem--i.e., runaway pork because of the
of legislators to seek rents for their constituents and log-roll
others for support--if I trusted presidents more. But it is
beyond measure to view the president, whether Republican or
a "virtuous Madisonian" who will use the veto axe in a
manner. Instead, she will (inevitably) use it as a mechanism
rewarding political party friends and going after partisan
see no good reason to give added power at this time to an
overpowerful presidency. There are other ways to go after pork.
David E. Bernstein
University of Michigan School of Law
George Mason University School of Law
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Conlawprof