Posting this because I remember this controversy when then-president Clinton invoked the "line-item veto" to selectively void portions of bills sent for his signature before they were enacted into law. Quote from tfa:
"From now on, presidents will be able to say 'no' to wasteful spending or tax loopholes, even as they say 'yes' to vital legislation," he said at the time. "Special interests will not be able to play the old game of slipping a provision into a massive bill in the hope that no one will notice."
...
Supreme Court decision or no, presidents continue to fight for the authority they say can save the nation billions of dollars. (Clinton's first use of the line-item veto alone saved $625 million, as CBS News' Sharyl Attkisson reported at the time.)
This was a huge controversy at the time and ultimately was ruled as overstepping the boundaries and the separation of the legislative and executive branches. The idea that this was a controversy seems awfully quaint today.
1 comment
[ 3.7 ms ] story [ 13.9 ms ] thread"From now on, presidents will be able to say 'no' to wasteful spending or tax loopholes, even as they say 'yes' to vital legislation," he said at the time. "Special interests will not be able to play the old game of slipping a provision into a massive bill in the hope that no one will notice." ... Supreme Court decision or no, presidents continue to fight for the authority they say can save the nation billions of dollars. (Clinton's first use of the line-item veto alone saved $625 million, as CBS News' Sharyl Attkisson reported at the time.)
This was a huge controversy at the time and ultimately was ruled as overstepping the boundaries and the separation of the legislative and executive branches. The idea that this was a controversy seems awfully quaint today.