The American Spectator

Print Email

Text Size

The Spectacle Blog

Quin, it is hard to argue that in a case where the Constitution plainly sets forth the rules for vetoing a bill that Congress can come up with a new arrangement.

To recap: 1) Team Romney, as Quin pointed out, sent around an article by Doug Kmiec arguing that the line item veto is so constitutional and listing the justices Romney would seek as models, carefully omitting Clarence Thomas who of course voted to strike down the line item veto; 2) Team Rudy responds via Ted Olson with "what about the 6-3 Supreme Court case didn't you understand?" (He says it much more eloquently); 3) Team Rudy continues to bang at Romney with an email saying that "if the lawyers say it is okay" should qualify Romney's foreign policy pronouncements; and 4) Team Thompson says we brought up the Romney gaffe first last night (they did I think) with this : "Question: If you were president of the United States, would you need to go to Congress to get authorization to take military action against Iran's nuclear facilities?Answer: You sit down with your attorneys.The First Thing Fred Thompson Would Do? Sit Down With His Generals And Consult With Congressional Leaders. " For now, Team Thompson -- likely thrilled Romney is having a tough day -- prefers to remind whoever is still picking through the remains of the debate that "Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani continued their partisan bickering, this time over things like the constitutionality of the line item veto. While they played politics, Fred Thompson rose above it and took his conservative, small government, tax cutting message straight to the American people."

UPDATE: And really what is the point to continue to quote the dissent (that would be the losing side) on the line item veto? It certainly doesn't make the case that Rudy's was wrong then nor does it suggest that there is any likelihood that the line item veto could be restored in the near future short of a constitutional amendment. And the gratuitous suggestion that you'd support a Scalia in the future (but not a Thomas?) perpetuates the bad idea that you should select judges for the results you hope to obtain.

topics:
Constitution, Law, Supreme Court, Military, Iran