Line Item Veto Question

[Mark Tushnet]

IIRC, when this option was explored in detail, it foundered on difficulties
in defining (the equivalent of) "item," which works well enough as an
informal term but apparently works badly as a term of art.

 

Mark Tushnet

William Nelson Cromwell Professor of Law

Harvard Law School

Areeda 223

Cambridge, MA  02138

ph:  617-496-4451 (office); 202-291-6352 (home); 202-374-9571 (mobile);
617-496-4866 (fax)

  _____  

From: conlawprof-bounces at lists.ucla.edu
[mailto:conlawprof-bounces at lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of
DavidEBernstein at aol.com
Sent: Thursday, September 07, 2006 11:21 AM
To: Conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu
Subject: Line Item Veto Question

 

Is there any reason why Congress can't simply pass a law that says something
along the lines of "Henceforth, when legislation is sent to the president
that contains more than one item, each item shall be considered a separate
bill.  The president may sign the entire piece of legislation, which shall
be deemed as approving the entire bill, or he may, with a red marker, cross
out any item that he objects to, and then sign the rest of it, which shall
be deemed a veto of those items so marked, with the rest of the legislation
approved."

 

Or, if that's no good, "Henceforth, when legislation is sent to the
president that contains more than one item, each item shall be considered a
separate bill.  The president shall either sign or veto each item
individually."  

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.ucla.edu/pipermail/conlawprof/attachments/20060907/7ba912d2/attachment.html