Expansion of Presidential Line Item Veto Power Amendment[Passed/Sent to Regions]

[Sam Spade]

For the sixth debate slot for Emergency/Forum Affairs legislation, I am continuing down the line of bills the executive has proposed towards these subjects.

If someone wishes to challenge my action, they may do so per Article IV, Section 2, Clause 3 of the OSPR, which reads as follows:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The legislation is presented below.


Expansion of Presidential Line Item Veto Power Amendment

Article I, Section 3, Clause 4 of the Constitution shall be amended to read as follows:

Whensoever the Senate shall pass a bill and present it to the President, he shall have the option to amend the bill and return it to the Senate in amended form. The President shall have this option only once with any particular bill presented to him. The sponsor of the bill shall then have the following options:

(a) motion to approve the President’s redraft by simple majority and return it to the President for his signature or veto – should this motion fail, the bill, as it was prior to being redrafted, shall be returned to the President for his signature or veto;

(b) motion to reject the President’s redraft in it’s entirety by simple majority and return it to the President for his signature or veto – should this motion fail, debate on the bill, in its redrafted form, shall resume in the Senate;

(c) direct for resumed debate on the bill as presented to the president;

(d) withdraw the bill.

[Sam Spade]

As I have said before, I will oppose this bill as presently worded.

I will be drafting amendments to make something that I could vote for.

I am also personally leery of this expansion of Presidential power.

[Sam Spade]

I have not had time to write the amendment.  Hopefully, I will get to it soon.

[Sam Spade]

I haven't had a chance to write the amendment (yet), but I am posting my response posts to Jas in the Protest and Analysis thread about an acceptable alternative.  I curious to hear thoughts on this idea.

Here is what I have in mind:

1. If the President vetoes and proposes a "redraft", the sponsor may choose to 1) file an "approve the redraft" motion or 2) withdraw the legislation.

2. If the sponsor wishes to file an "approve the redraft" motion and the motion is approved, then the redrafted bill will be returned to the Prez.

3. If the Senate rejects the "approve the redraft" motion, the sponsor may file a second motion:  Whether to 1) send the original legislation back to the Prez or 2) resume debate on the original legislation, not the "redraft".  (which can be proposed as an amendment, if someone cares to).  If the sponsor at this time wishes to withdraw the legislation, he may.

It would need to be reworded, but this could essentially be amended by adding a little language to the Constitution allowing the President to "redraft" any legislation presented to him, which would then be sent back to the Senate for approval or rejection.

The rest could be dealt with in Senate rules.    I would have to work out the language.  And I know this is more pro-Senate than otherwise.

And my explanation:

Because this way gives the Senate body much more power over the bill than the sponsor - if you don't like sponsors, that's the way to go.  However, it does assure that the sponsor has one important power - withdrawing the legislation whenever he wants (not during votes obviously), which acts as a balance towards weird Presidential rewrites that may have Senate support, but not sponsor support. 

In my OSPR rewrite, I intend to work out this section, b/c sponsors should really have two powers - withdrawing his sponsored legislation and adding sponsors and they should impact each other.  No more.

Moreover, it harmonizes a Presidential veto procedurally (the sponsor has to file a motion to override or withdraw the legislation there too).  And it actually simplifies the whole process and eliminates loopholes.  For example, if the sponsor were to file a motion to reject (b) under your proposal and the rest of the Senate wanted to approve the bill, we would be forced to go back to debate again and approve again with amendments.  Or if the Senate wanted to remove the bill back into debate and the sponsor filed a motion to approve the "redraft", the Senate would have no power to return to debate.

In my creation, the Senate either votes to accept the Prez's redraft or not.  Then if the Senate chooses not to, it can choose to either send the Prez the original bill or return to the debate floor.  The sponsor can withdraw the legislation if he wants to before a decision has been.

Another issue that I hadn't thought of before is whether the President should have multiple redrafts of legislation.  Just FYI.

And there is no assurance in my mind that I would support my proposal.  I'm just merely presenting an alternative that I might support for your perusal.  Clear? 

[Sam Spade]

Bumping for input.

[Sam Spade]

Because of the three absences next week, I suspect that we will have to put off a vote until other Senators come back.  Considering there are already three pretty solid votes against this in present form, I suspect this bill's chances are not that great of passing, but I could be wrong. 

I will put together my amendment next week (b/c I will have the time) to see some type of coalition can be put together to give this bill a chance.  I do want to let the administration know once again that I'm not even sure I would support my proposal, but it needs to be put out there.

[Sam Spade]

I'll finish the amendment here soon also.

[Sam Spade]

I propose an amendment to strike the entire clause of this text and replace it with the following language:

Article I, Section 3, Clause 4 of the Constitution shall be amended to read as follows:

Whensoever the Senate shall pass a bill and present it to the President, he shall have the option to redraft the bill and return it to the Senate in redrafted form. The President shall have this option once with each particular bill presented to him. The original sponsor of the bill, as so defined in Senate rules, shall either file a motion to approve the President’s redraft by a simple majority vote, and return it to the President for his signature or veto, or withdraw the bill from the Senate.

If the Senate approves the President's redraft by a simple majority vote, the redrafted bill shall be returned to the President for his signature or veto.  If the Senate rejects the President's redraft, the original sponsor shall either file a motion to send the original draft of the bill back to the President for his signature or veto, or shall direct the Senate to resume debate on the bill as presented to the President.


Unless this passes, I shall be voting Nay.  If this does pass, I am still undecided.

[Sam Spade]

We are now voting on the following amendment:

I propose an amendment to strike the entire clause of this text and replace it with the following language:

Article I, Section 3, Clause 4 of the Constitution shall be amended to read as follows:

Whensoever the Senate shall pass a bill and present it to the President, he shall have the option to redraft the bill and return it to the Senate in redrafted form. The President shall have this option once with each particular bill presented to him. The original sponsor of the bill, as so defined in Senate rules, shall either file a motion to approve the President’s redraft by a simple majority vote, and return it to the President for his signature or veto, or withdraw the bill from the Senate.

If the Senate approves the President's redraft by a simple majority vote, the redrafted bill shall be returned to the President for his signature or veto.  If the Senate rejects the President's redraft, the original sponsor shall either file a motion to send the original draft of the bill back to the President for his signature or veto, or shall direct the Senate to resume debate on the bill as presented to the President.

Please vote Aye, Nay or Abstain.


Aye.

[Sam Spade]

With 7 ayes, 1 absention and 2 not voting, the amendment has passed.

[Sam Spade]

I will "motion for cloture" - as silly as it might sound, it is mandated by the OSPR (which probably also need to be amended on this point)


We are now voting on the "motion for cloture".  Please vote Aye, Nay or Abstain.


Aye.

[Sam Spade]

With 7 votes in favor and 3 not voting, the motion for cloture has passed.

We are now moving to final passage of this bill:

Expansion of Presidential Line Item Veto Power Amendment

Article I, Section 3, Clause 4 of the Constitution shall be amended to read as follows:

Whensoever the Senate shall pass a bill and present it to the President, he shall have the option to redraft the bill and return it to the Senate in redrafted form. The President shall have this option once with each particular bill presented to him. The original sponsor of the bill, as so defined in Senate rules, shall either file a motion to approve the President’s redraft by a simple majority vote, and return it to the President for his signature or veto, or withdraw the bill from the Senate.

If the Senate approves the President's redraft by a simple majority vote, the redrafted bill shall be returned to the President for his signature or veto.  If the Senate rejects the President's redraft, the original sponsor shall either file a motion to send the original draft of the bill back to the President for his signature or veto, or shall direct the Senate to resume debate on the bill as presented to the President.

Please vote Aye, Nay or Abstain.

[Sam Spade]

Why do I get the feeling my vote will be the deciding vote?

I really am still undecided concerning this amendment, which I helped create.  I might even be willing to listen to opinion.

[Sam Spade]

After much consideration...

Aye.

[Sam Spade]

bumping for Rob in case he missed this - and his vote is important here.

[Sam Spade]

This legislation has enough votes to pass.  Senators have 24 hours to change their votes.