4 ms·

As one user alludes to below, it did originate from an overuse of omnibus bills in the 1930s [1]. Here's something important to realize: "Neither the framers o

As one user alludes to below, it did originate from an overuse of omnibus bills in the 1930s [1]. Here's something important to realize: "Neither the framers of the 1930 amendment, nor the voters who ratified it, had any intention of creating a unilateral executive power to create laws that the legislature did not approve. Instead, they sought to ensure that each separate item that might become law as part of an appropriation bill would have the approval of the governor, in addition to that of the senate and the assembly. [2]" And guess what? The Frankenstein veto doesn't exist anymore! It was removed in 2008 [3]. The Wikipedia article should more explicitly state that. Note that line-item vetoing still exists widely across the US and is quite useful. From an absurdist standpoint, I find the Frankenstein veto hilarious because it's, to use the term from the Wikipedia article, "quasi-legislating." You're not actually adding content to the bill, but you're changing the meaning! It's twisted and brilliant at the same time. One commenter says "how can this possibly be legal?" Well, it's not anymore! But it did make for some clever and humorous legislating. Like, look at link [1] and find the picture half-way down with yellow highlights. You have to have a certain audacity to do that. Also, I'm from Wisconsin and would love to see Jim Doyle fight the Bears at Lambeau. He probably would have wiped the floor with Cutler... Sources: [1] https://wiscontext.org/story-wisconsins-singular-partial-veto https://wiscontext.org/story-wisconsins-singular-partial-vet... [2] https://www.wisbar.org/NewsPublications/WisconsinLawyer/Pages/Article.aspx?ArticleID=1640 https://www.wisbar.org/NewsPublications/WisconsinLawyer/Page... [3] https://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/03/us/03wisconsin.html https://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/03/us/03wisconsin.html

lilyball 7y ago
The Wikipedia page does address the 2008 amendment but says it doesn't fully remove the frankenstein veto: > An amendment to the Wisconsin Constitution passed in 2008 sought to curb the practice even further, but its prohibition on "crossing out words and numbers to create a new sentence from two or more sentences" left intact the Governor's power to "cross out words within a sentence to change its meaning, remove individual digits to create new numbers or delete entire sentences from paragraphs." This loophole has allowed the practice to continue, albeit less frequently.
- waterheater 7y ago
  Eh, changing numbers or words to alter a particular sentence doesn't seem like a big issue. Certainly, there's a lot of power given to the governor, but that power is constrained by the words on the page. Now, if you write a bad sentence which still lets the governor change how the money is allocated, you're just a sloppy legislator. :)
  - totalZero 7y ago
    changing numbers does seem like a big issue. there's a lot of power given to the governor. Now you change the money allocated.
  - sarah180 7y ago
    > Changing a particular sentence doesn't seem like a big issue. Certainly a power given to the governor. > Let the governor change money. I'm sure Tony Evers appreciates your support for making him the judge in all criminal cases and allowing him to issue currency. (I'm sure he also agrees that only a bad sentence could be edited to imply an absurd non sequitur.)
  - Aperocky 7y ago
    > Eh, changing numbers or words to alter a particular sentence doesn't seem like a big issue. Certainly, there's a lot of power given to the governor, but that power is constrained by the words on the page. Now, if you write a bad sentence which still lets the governor change how the money is allocated, you're just a sloppy legislator. :) Eh, alter a particular sentence seem like a big issue. power to the governor by the words on the page. money you're just sloppy. ^^ All of that are changing individual sentences of yours, read it now.
  - logicallee 7y ago
    Going to do the same thing as your other replies. This is fun: >changing words to alter a particular sentence lets the governor legislat[e].
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
twic 7y ago
> Note that line-item vetoing still exists widely across the US and is quite useful. Almost every other country on earth seems to get on fine without it. It seems like a bizarre and trivially abusable power to me. Say a left-wing legislature passes a bill to make taxation more progressive, by decreasing the standard rate of tax, and adding an additional rate of tax for people earning over a million dollars a year. A right-wing governor can just line-item veto the second part, and turn it into a tax cut. So either the legislature simply won't pass such a bill, effectively silencing the voice of the people as expressed through their votes for legislators, or they will have to draft it in a cunning way to make it line-item-veto-proof, spending time and text, and reducing clarity, to overcome that obstacle.
- xref 7y ago
  Decided to look up what countries use line item vetos, amusingly the Wikipedia pages lists: Brazil, Panama, and three subsections about the US including during the civil war confederacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Line-item_veto https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Line-item_veto
- walshemj 7y ago
  From a democratic perspective how exactly is having an executive be able to change a motion after it has passed a "good" thing
  - sarah180 7y ago
    America was not intended to be a pure democracy. The "checks and balances" of our government are really several different forms of government. We have the democracy of the public, the plebeian officers of the house, the aristocracy of the senate, the council of philosophers on the court, and the dictatorship of the executive. None of this, however, argues in favor of giving the executive the authority to rewrite legislation. Even the much more mild line-item veto is an absurd workaround for a broken legislative process. If the legislature wants smaller, separable acts, it doesn't need to go crying to King Solomon.
    - 7y ago
ddevault 7y ago
>The Wikipedia article should more explicitly state that. Be the change you wish to see in the world. Wikipedia is publically editable :)

lilyball 7y ago

The Wikipedia page does address the 2008 amendment but says it doesn't fully remove the frankenstein veto: > An amendment to the Wisconsin Constitution passed in 2008 sought to curb the practice even further, but its prohibition on "crossing out words and numbers to create a new sentence from two or more sentences" left intact the Governor's power to "cross out words within a sentence to change its meaning, remove individual digits to create new numbers or delete entire sentences from paragraphs." This loophole has allowed the practice to continue, albeit less frequently.

waterheater 7y ago
Eh, changing numbers or words to alter a particular sentence doesn't seem like a big issue. Certainly, there's a lot of power given to the governor, but that power is constrained by the words on the page. Now, if you write a bad sentence which still lets the governor change how the money is allocated, you're just a sloppy legislator. :)
- totalZero 7y ago
  changing numbers does seem like a big issue. there's a lot of power given to the governor. Now you change the money allocated.
- sarah180 7y ago
  > Changing a particular sentence doesn't seem like a big issue. Certainly a power given to the governor. > Let the governor change money. I'm sure Tony Evers appreciates your support for making him the judge in all criminal cases and allowing him to issue currency. (I'm sure he also agrees that only a bad sentence could be edited to imply an absurd non sequitur.)
- Aperocky 7y ago
  > Eh, changing numbers or words to alter a particular sentence doesn't seem like a big issue. Certainly, there's a lot of power given to the governor, but that power is constrained by the words on the page. Now, if you write a bad sentence which still lets the governor change how the money is allocated, you're just a sloppy legislator. :) Eh, alter a particular sentence seem like a big issue. power to the governor by the words on the page. money you're just sloppy. ^^ All of that are changing individual sentences of yours, read it now.
- logicallee 7y ago
  Going to do the same thing as your other replies. This is fun: >changing words to alter a particular sentence lets the governor legislat[e].

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

twic 7y ago

> Note that line-item vetoing still exists widely across the US and is quite useful. Almost every other country on earth seems to get on fine without it. It seems like a bizarre and trivially abusable power to me. Say a left-wing legislature passes a bill to make taxation more progressive, by decreasing the standard rate of tax, and adding an additional rate of tax for people earning over a million dollars a year. A right-wing governor can just line-item veto the second part, and turn it into a tax cut. So either the legislature simply won't pass such a bill, effectively silencing the voice of the people as expressed through their votes for legislators, or they will have to draft it in a cunning way to make it line-item-veto-proof, spending time and text, and reducing clarity, to overcome that obstacle.

xref 7y ago
Decided to look up what countries use line item vetos, amusingly the Wikipedia pages lists: Brazil, Panama, and three subsections about the US including during the civil war confederacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Line-item_veto https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Line-item_veto
walshemj 7y ago
From a democratic perspective how exactly is having an executive be able to change a motion after it has passed a "good" thing
- sarah180 7y ago
  America was not intended to be a pure democracy. The "checks and balances" of our government are really several different forms of government. We have the democracy of the public, the plebeian officers of the house, the aristocracy of the senate, the council of philosophers on the court, and the dictatorship of the executive. None of this, however, argues in favor of giving the executive the authority to rewrite legislation. Even the much more mild line-item veto is an absurd workaround for a broken legislative process. If the legislature wants smaller, separable acts, it doesn't need to go crying to King Solomon.
  - 7y ago

ddevault 7y ago

>The Wikipedia article should more explicitly state that. Be the change you wish to see in the world. Wikipedia is publically editable :)