3 ms·

I'd be really interested in hearing from someone who thinks this is a good thing. How can this possibly be legal?

wrkronmiller 7y ago
Venturing a guess: the goal was to allow line-item vetoes in omnibus-type bills so that the legislature can’t force the executive into accepting unwanted legislation alongside badly-needed and potentially unrelated legislation.
- mikepurvis 7y ago
  This is basically what happens with the budget every year in Canada. And we don't even have the "executive with veto power is the other party" issue because it's parliamentary.
  - cperciva 7y ago
    We have no shortage of politicians promising to put an end to omnibus budget bills, though! Unfortunately they seem to forget about those promises once they get elected...
    - rtkwe 7y ago
      The problem is they're a simple answer to the problem of highly divided politics. Passing everything at once is the only guaranteed way to hold people across the isle to their word that voting yes on this bill they want will mean a yes on the thing you want. Instead vote on all the compromises at once. In that way the line item veto is anathema to that. The legislature agreed to this bill allowing the governor to just cherry pick the parts they like breaks that down.
mcphage 7y ago
There's a line of thinking that, if you can do a thing: "I can veto legislature", then you can do a weaker version of that thing: "I can veto a line or a word from legislature". Similarly, "I can fire a person for no reason" becomes 'weakened' to "I can fire a person for specific reason X". I think Frankenstein Vetos demonstrates that that thinking is folly, but that's how the reasoning goes. And at least in the case of firings, we've recognized that, just because you can fire a person for no reason, doesn't mean that there can't be reason that would be illegal to fire them.
- fermata 7y ago
  If you have the power to approve or reject a bill, then the power to approve, reject, OR ALTER the bill is a stronger power, not a weaker one. In this case, a vastly stronger one.
  - mcphage 7y ago
    It turns out, yes, and that’s why these are illegal. But if you argue that vetoing a bill means vetoing every line of it, then vetoing almost every line is a weaker process—like “I can’t carry this whole pile up the stairs, so I’ll carry a few things up at a time” becomes “I can’t reject this whole bill, so I’ll reject just part of it”. But as we see, that argument doesn’t really hold up.
joe_the_user 7y ago
"How can this possibly be legal?" I assume that every state mandates the separation of the legislature and the executive and this goes fundamentally against that principle. So the courts, the third branch here, have to be willing to overlook this problem. So these actions become formally legal through the general corruption of two of the three branches of government? How is this possible? Basically, enough people fine common interest in allowing what would normally be illegal actions. Do some branches of government act illegally, immorally and self servingly? It is not entirely uncommon. All it takes is a self-serving coterie of people at the top. It goes away from embarrassment and/or some part of the cabal dropping out. (I am not a constitutional lawyer)
chrisseaton 7y ago
> How can this possibly be legal? Well through a law allowing it, I'd imagine. Also, they probably assumed people would be reasonable and would use it responsibly.

Venturing a guess: the goal was to allow line-item vetoes in omnibus-type bills so that the legislature can’t force the executive into accepting unwanted legislation alongside badly-needed and potentially unrelated legislation.

mikepurvis 7y ago
This is basically what happens with the budget every year in Canada. And we don't even have the "executive with veto power is the other party" issue because it's parliamentary.
- cperciva 7y ago
  We have no shortage of politicians promising to put an end to omnibus budget bills, though! Unfortunately they seem to forget about those promises once they get elected...
  - rtkwe 7y ago
    The problem is they're a simple answer to the problem of highly divided politics. Passing everything at once is the only guaranteed way to hold people across the isle to their word that voting yes on this bill they want will mean a yes on the thing you want. Instead vote on all the compromises at once. In that way the line item veto is anathema to that. The legislature agreed to this bill allowing the governor to just cherry pick the parts they like breaks that down.

mcphage 7y ago

There's a line of thinking that, if you can do a thing: "I can veto legislature", then you can do a weaker version of that thing: "I can veto a line or a word from legislature". Similarly, "I can fire a person for no reason" becomes 'weakened' to "I can fire a person for specific reason X". I think Frankenstein Vetos demonstrates that that thinking is folly, but that's how the reasoning goes. And at least in the case of firings, we've recognized that, just because you can fire a person for no reason, doesn't mean that there can't be reason that would be illegal to fire them.

fermata 7y ago
If you have the power to approve or reject a bill, then the power to approve, reject, OR ALTER the bill is a stronger power, not a weaker one. In this case, a vastly stronger one.
- mcphage 7y ago
  It turns out, yes, and that’s why these are illegal. But if you argue that vetoing a bill means vetoing every line of it, then vetoing almost every line is a weaker process—like “I can’t carry this whole pile up the stairs, so I’ll carry a few things up at a time” becomes “I can’t reject this whole bill, so I’ll reject just part of it”. But as we see, that argument doesn’t really hold up.

joe_the_user 7y ago

"How can this possibly be legal?" I assume that every state mandates the separation of the legislature and the executive and this goes fundamentally against that principle. So the courts, the third branch here, have to be willing to overlook this problem. So these actions become formally legal through the general corruption of two of the three branches of government? How is this possible? Basically, enough people fine common interest in allowing what would normally be illegal actions. Do some branches of government act illegally, immorally and self servingly? It is not entirely uncommon. All it takes is a self-serving coterie of people at the top. It goes away from embarrassment and/or some part of the cabal dropping out. (I am not a constitutional lawyer)

chrisseaton 7y ago

> How can this possibly be legal? Well through a law allowing it, I'd imagine. Also, they probably assumed people would be reasonable and would use it responsibly.