Talk:Line-item veto in the United States

National Archives citation

According to this link (http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/nara004.html), from the National Archives and Records Administraton, the line-item veto was used not just once (as this article states), but either 12 or 82 times, depending on the count of number of bills affected or line-items vetoed. Perhaps the article should be corrected.

it was corrected

State line item vetos

Perhaps the U.S. states that have enacted a line item veto should be listed.

There's a list of states that don't have it. It's much more succinct to list 7 states than to list 43 states. --Darryl Hamlin 18:19, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Line-item veto and the U.S. Constitution

Cut indicated by strikeout:

Despite the court cases ruling the power unconstitutional, President George W. Bush requested that Congress give him the power of the line item veto in his 2006 State of the Union address. A constitutional amendment to give the President line item veto power has been considered periodically since the Court ruled the 1996 Act unconstitutional.

This sounds like an argument against passing another bill. It should (a) be sourced and attributed; and (b) get balanced with the opposite argument, namely Bush's Feb 2006 call for a line-item veto which he asserts will pass constitutional muster. --Uncle Ed 21:59, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

expansion of article

I would suggest this article be expanded to include the following:

• More detail describing the different types of line-item veto powers including the so-called "partial veto" available in Wisconsin that allows individual words to be struck out in addition to whole lines.
• The common arguments for and against the line-item veto.

--Cab88 06:02, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Current Events

The signing statement article links to this page, and is currently a topic of controversy. I have organized the more current events into a subsection and included a single citation permitting this article to link back to signing statement. Hopefully this will prevent the article from becoming a dumping ground for commentary. If anyone finds my wording to be unbalanced, please adjust it accordingly. Additionally, I cited the CSA Constitution statement.

I would be in favor of removing the list of states that do not have the line item veto in favor of a list of states using the line item veto with verified sources and descriptions of their implementations. It is very difficult to verify that those seven states are the only ones not using it, since this is a negative statement, and it does seem to be far less informative than the inclusive approach.

--Falcomadol 20:08, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure it is not difficult to verify this information (it being a negative statement doesn't actually make it less verifiable, since there are only 50 states--none unaccounted for, heh). The list of seven is actually much more informative, or at least more accessible, since it is comparatively difficult to look over a list of 43 and pinpoint exactly which states are "unusual" in this respect. Fearwig 02:28, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Two questions...

1. What was the fate of those laws on which Clinton used the line-item veto after the Supreme Court declared it unconstitutional? Were the vetos cancelled?
2. In states that have line-item vetos, can the governor veto any portion of a law? Could he, for instance, veto all the verbs in a law, rendering it meaningless? --Jfruh (talk) 07:13, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm no lawyer, but to render the bill meaningless by removing all of the verbs? What would be the point, other than to mock the legislature? He might as well veto the entire bill. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 02:03, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Line-item veto in the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130117082555/http://legis.wisconsin.gov/lrb/pubs/ib/04ib1.pdf to http://legis.wisconsin.gov/lrb/pubs/ib/04ib1.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:46, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Line-item veto in the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060610203926/http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/pubpress/2006/line_item_veto.pdf to http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/pubpress/2006/line_item_veto.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:32, 23 December 2017 (UTC)