Overview
Title
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to provide certain line item veto authority to the President.
ELI5 AI
The bill suggests changing the rules so that the President can pick and choose parts of a money plan from Congress to cross out, like selectively erasing some items from a shopping list, but if enough Congress members disagree, they can put those items back.
Summary AI
H. J. RES. 8 proposes an amendment to the U.S. Constitution that would allow the President to have certain line item veto authority. This means the President could choose to reduce specific appropriations in a bill or joint resolution, making it law with those reductions. If the President makes such a reduction, he must inform Congress within ten days, and Congress has the option to disapprove the reduction. If two-thirds of both the House and Senate vote against the reduction, the original appropriation amount would be restored.
Published
Keywords AI
Sources
Bill Statistics
Size
Language
Complexity
AnalysisAI
General Summary of the Bill
The proposed joint resolution, H. J. RES. 8, seeks to amend the United States Constitution to grant the President the authority to exercise a line item veto power specifically for budget appropriations. Under this amendment, when the President is signing a bill or joint resolution into law, they would have the power to reduce certain appropriations specified within the bill. This proposed amendment also includes safeguards whereby Congress can override the President's reductions with a two-thirds majority vote from both the House of Representatives and the Senate.
Significant Issues
Several significant issues arise from this proposed amendment.
First, there is concern about the balance of power between the Executive and Legislative branches. By allowing the President to unilaterally amend appropriations, the amendment could disrupt the existing system of checks and balances designed to separate powers among branches of government.
Second, the amendment requires a two-thirds majority from both congressional chambers to overturn the President’s reduction of appropriations. This high threshold could limit Congress's ability to effectively counteract the President's changes and may render legislative opposition ineffective even in cases of substantial dissent.
Furthermore, the lack of concrete criteria or processes laid out for the reduction of appropriations leads to ambiguity. This absence could result in arbitrary decision-making, raising concerns about transparency and accountability within the executive branch.
Finally, the provision that the President must notify Congress of any reductions within ten days presents logistical challenges. It may not allow sufficient time for Congress to review and respond thoroughly to significant alterations in appropriations.
Impact on the Public
This bill, if enacted, could have wide-reaching implications for the public. On one hand, it could lead to more efficient control over government expenditures if the President uses this power to eliminate unnecessary spending. On the other hand, crucial funding areas, such as education, healthcare, or infrastructure, might face unanticipated cuts, potentially affecting services relied upon by large segments of the population.
Impact on Specific Stakeholders
The proposed amendment could have varying effects on different stakeholders.
Executive Branch: The President would gain a significant increase in power, allowing more direct influence over specific budgetary elements. This capacity could enable the executive branch to enforce its policy priorities more strongly.
Legislative Branch: Congress may experience a reduction in its power to control the federal budget. If unable to muster the required two-thirds majority to overturn a veto, Congress might find its role in crafting appropriations bills diminished.
State Governments and Local Authorities: As recipients of federal funding, state governments might face changes in funding levels, impacting their ability to plan and implement state-level programs.
Interest Groups and Lobbyists: Those with vested interests in federal appropriations might find themselves needing to engage more with the executive branch to ensure budget priorities are protected, potentially altering lobbying dynamics.
In conclusion, while the proposal aims to make the federal budget process more efficient, it raises important concerns about power distribution and the potential for unintended consequences that could impact government functionality and public services.
Issues
The balance of power between the Executive and Legislative branches could be significantly affected by this amendment, as it grants the President a new unilateral authority to modify appropriations, potentially undermining the traditional checks and balances. [Issues relate to Section 1]
The requirement for a two-thirds majority in both the House and the Senate to disapprove the reduction creates a high threshold, which may limit Congress's ability to effectively counteract the President's appropriation reductions, even if opposed by a significant number of legislators. [Issues relate to Section 2]
The lack of specific criteria or detailed process regarding the President's ability to reduce appropriations could lead to arbitrary decisions and possibly overextension of presidential power, raising concerns about transparency and accountability. [Issues relate to Section 1 and Section 2]
The amendment's provisions regarding how reductions are to be justified, implemented, and accounted for are not sufficiently detailed, leading to potential ambiguities in its execution, which might cause legislative confusion or implementation challenges. [Issues relate to Section 1 and Section 2]
The amendment requires the President to notify Congress of a reduction within 10 days, but this timeframe may not be sufficient for a thorough legislative review and response, potentially rushing important oversight processes. [Issues relate to Section 2]
The language lacks clarity on whether the reduction power applies universally to all types of appropriations or selectively, risking unforeseen consequences on crucial funding areas without appropriate oversight. [Issues relate to Section 1]
There is no guidance on how the appropriated amounts will be utilized or restricted if returned following a disapproval, which may cause budgetary uncertainties or mismanagement. [Issues relate to Section 2]
Sections
Sections are presented as they are annotated in the original legislative text. Any missing headers, numbers, or non-consecutive order is due to the original text.
Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The proposed amendment to the U.S. Constitution allows the President to reduce funding in a bill when signing it into law. If the President does this, they must notify Congress, and Congress can overrule the decision with a two-thirds vote in both the House and Senate.
1. Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The President has the power to approve and sign a bill or joint resolution, and while doing so, they can also reduce the amount of money allocated in the bill. Once signed, the bill becomes law with the reduced appropriation.
2. Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
If the President decides to cut funding as outlined in the first section, they must inform Congress within 10 days. Congress can vote to reject this cut, and if two-thirds of both the House and the Senate agree, the funding will revert to its original amount.