Exercising presidential line-item veto power in spite of it being unconstitutional

Politics
1

In Clinton v. City of New York, 524 U.S. 417 (1998), our Supreme Court correctly struck down our Executive Branch of government [our President] from exercising the extraordinary power of line-item veto powers, i.e., our president removing specific provisions of a bill presented to him, before signing it into law. Of course, many of our Founders, with great enthusiasm and wisdom, also rejected such an extraordinary power being placed in the hands of our president. One of the most eloquent arguments made against allowing such power being placed in the hands of our president was that of Benjamin Franklin:

‘The negative of the governor was constantly made use of to extort money. No good law whatever could be passed without a private bargain with him. An increase of salary or some donation, was always made a condition; till at last, it became the regular practice to have orders in his favor on the treasury presented along with the bills to be signed, so that he might actually receive the former before he should sign the latter. When the Indians were scalping the Western people, and notice of it arrived, the concurrence of the governor in the means of self-defense could not be got, until it was agreed that the people were to fight for the security of his property, whilst he was to have no share of the burdens of taxation.’’ ___ SEE: Benjamin Franklin, June 4 of the Constitutional Convention

And here we are today, while the powers of our Executive Office are defined and extremely limited as outlined in Article 1, Section 2, of our Constitution, somehow our president is now exercising legislative powers when our Constitution declares:

“All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.” Article 1, Section 1.

In effect, our president is today usurping legislative power already struck down as being unconstitutional by our Supreme Court, and, exercising the desired power of line-item veto [exercising his will with regard to legislation] even before legislation is presented to him using “executive orders”. And that is a direct assault on our system of government and its separation of powers as commanded by our Constitution, under which the people’s elected members of Congress are entrusted with the exclusive power to enact legislation, which I might add is also limited by the terms of our Constitution.

Our Constitution is being shredded and trampled upon before our very eyes, by those who took an oath to support and defend it, and in the process, American citizens are being made into taxpaying slaves to finance the whims and fancies of those holding an office of public trust.

JWK

At the close of the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia on September 18, 1787, a Mrs Powel anxiously awaited the results and as Benjamin Franklin emerged from the long task now finished asked him directly, ‘Well, Doctor, what have we got? A republic or a monarchy?’ “A republic, if you can keep it,” responded Franklin.

1 Like
2

For an example of Biden’s attempted use of authoritarian legislative power see:

3

Knew that was going to happen.

4

And yet, this Administration continues in subjugating our nation’s rule book . . . the Constitution of the United States of America.

JWK

The Biden Administration is betting the farm that American citizens will not raise one finger to defend their border against the Administration’s ongoing and planned invasion of the United States.

5

Another example of Biden violating the terms of our Constitution which is similar to attempting to exercise line-item veto power.

“By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution”?

Seems to me our federal government, and that includes our President, is expressly forbidden by the terms of our Constitution, and in particularly by the Second and Tenth amendments, to enter the various States and meddle or infringe in any manner whatsoever, with the people’s right to keep and bear arms. How do I know the above mentioned attempt is expressly forbidden? Because the Resolution of the First Congress Submitting Twelve Amendments to the Constitution; March 4, 1789, which includes the Second and Tenth amendments, confirms this to be true!

“THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added”.

Additional evidence is James Madison, speaking with reference to the adoption of these specific amendments, and confirming their adoption is to preserve and protect “federalism”, our Constitution’s big-tent system which reserves to the States and people therein, all powers not delegated to Congress. He says:

“It cannot be a secret to the gentlemen in this House, that, notwithstanding the ratification of this system of Government by eleven of the thirteen United States, in some cases unanimously, in others by large majorities; yet still there is a great number of our constituents who are dissatisfied with it; among whom are many respectable for their talents and patriotism, and respectable for the jealousy they have for their liberty, which, though mistaken in its object, is laudable in its motive. There is a great body of the people falling under this description, who at present feel much inclined to join their support to the cause of Federalism” ___See :Madison, June 8th, 1789, Amendments to the Constitution

And with regard to the Tenth Amendment, the question may arise as to what powers have been reserved to the States and people therein, and the answer to that question is found in Federalist Paper No. 45 which summarizes those powers as follows:

“The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected.

The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State."

So, the bottom line is, our wise founding fathers expressly denied line-item veto power in the President’s hands, and also forbid our federal government, from meddling in the internal affairs of the states, ergo, Biden’s Executive Order has less force or effect than a piece of toilet paper.

JWK

“If the Constitution was ratified under the belief, sedulously propagated on all sides that such protection was afforded, would it not now be a fraud upon the whole people to give a different construction to its powers?”___ Justice Story