But Is the Line Item Veto the Right Thing?

"The line-item veto is unconstitutional determined not by John McCain, but by the Supreme Court. And the Supreme Court found that the line-item veto is unconstitutional. If I hadn't challenged that, I would not have been carrying out my fiduciary duties for the people of New York City. That was money that was illegally deprived to the people of my city. I fought for them."

So said former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani in Wednesday night's Republican presidential debate. Giuliani was responding to a shot fired by Arizona Senator John McCain. McCain was speaking of how readily he would wield a veto pen as President to thwart pork barrel spending, also known by the harmless-sounding euphemism, earmarks.

Said McCain: "...we'll give the president of the United States a line-item veto, which Rudy Giuliani opposed so that he can protect his $250 million worth of pork."

McCain was referring to a lawsuit in which Giuliani, as mayor, successfully prevented former President Bill Clinton from exercising an asserted line item veto over federal spending earmarked for projects in New York City. The US Supreme Court ruled Clinton's assertion unconstitutional, clearing the way for the pork to be sent to New York.

The line item veto, enjoyed by more than thirty US governors, gives chief executives the ability to sign spending bills into law while scratching out specific appropriations they deem exorbitant or unnecessary. Chester Alan Arthur was the first President to support the enactment of such a veto power. Ronald Reagan asked for legislation legitimizing the line item veto.

Giuliani is right in stating that the Supreme Court has ruled the line item veto unconstitutional. No one can dispute that, although McCain did on Wednesday evening. But in stating repeatedly, as he did in both the November 28 and the earlier October 9, debates, that "the line item veto is unconstitutional," he also sort of avoids the issue. In the two debates, first Governor Romney and then Senator McCain, were challenging Giuliani's bona fides as a proponent of fiscal responsibility.

Giuliani's contention that in bringing the suit, he was simply protecting the interests of his city, may have some merit, although it sounds an awful lot like the argument of every sectional and special interest group when it comes to pork barrel spending. Their arguments roughly run like this: "I'm against earmarks, unless they're earmarks that go to my community or to my preferred class of people."

But Giuliani appears to want to drape his lawsuit in the wifty legitimacy of constitutionality. It's a bit of a dodge.

The implicit question in McCain's and Romney's shots at him which Giuliani might more profitably address is, "Leaving aside the merits of the $250-million of New York pork, do you believe in a line item veto? Would you support a line item veto, something which even the Republican you and the other candidates for president invoke as the patron saint of your party, Ronald Reagan, supported? Or, was Mr. Reagan wrong?"

I would be interested in how Mr. Giuliani--and all the other candidates for his party's nomination--would respond to that question. (I'd also like to know how the Democratic candidates stand on the line item veto.)

It was Andrew Jackson who first made energetic use of presidential veto power. He did so to stand up against the interests he thought controlled the Congress. He deemed it a legitimate weapon for the President, who was elected by the whole country, to use in preventing interest groups of various kinds from getting laws passed benefiting the few.

But the presidential veto is usually impotent when it comes to spending measures. Illegitmate pork can easily be folded into legitimate and necessary spending measures, forcing President's hands. The President can choose to veto appropriations bills, which often go to the White House late any way, because they contain objectionable pork spending or simply accept such bills as the best that's likely to be produced by a Congress prone, even when its members are personally incorruptible, to spend money in the ways that constituents, city councils, and important supporters want them to spend it.

While Presidents are human beings and therefore as subject to corruption as the next mortal, it's easier for the President to speak for the whole country, as Andrew Jackson knew, than to push the petty, budget-busting agendas of congressional districts and individual states. The Constitution is a commendable, remarkable document. I have the deepest respect for it as the best thinking of what should be regarded, I think, as America's greatest generation. (The Constitution is, I think, greater than the Declaration of Independence. That document enunciated principles of liberty. But the Constitution was how the generation who secured American liberty decided it would use its liberty effectively and well.) The Constitution was not without its flaws, as its countenancing of slavery attests. The Framers knew too, that the document wasn't perfect and that circumstances would change, meaning that the power to amend it was essential and built into it.

The failure to give the US President the ability to veto specific items of spending within massive appropriations bills appears to me to be a design flaw in the Constitution.

For McCain to say that the line item veto is constitutional, which he did say on Wednesday night, is flat-out wrong. For Giuliani to say--repeatedly--that it's unconstitutional is irrelevant. The question, as I say, is whether advocating an amendment or at least, advocating exploring the possibility of such an amendment, is advisable.

[This is being cross-posted at The Moderate Voice.]

[UPDATE: In the comments here, my friend, Charlie Lehardy, makes a similar point to one I made in the comments on this post over at TMV. You might want to check out that discussion here.]

"Four score and seven...oh, hold on, I've gotta telegram from Mary"

That alternative image of the Gettysburg Address suggests itself after former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani took a phone call from his wife, Judith...while he was speaking before a group of National Rifle Association activists!

Yesterday, Chris Matthews ran a video clip of another time this same thing happened.

If this is a deliberate "cornball stunt," as Ann Althouse calls it, it's a really dumb one.

At this point, the less that Giuliani reminds the public of Judith, let alone of any aspect of his domestic life, the better off he'll be. Rudy needs keep telling himself, "I'm Grover Cleveland! I'm Grover Cleveland!" Appearing to be a bachelor, as Cleveland was when first elected president in 1884, would be a good strategic move for Giuliani.

That's because there's a widespread belief that, like Newt Gingrich, the former mayor has been a bit cavalier when it comes to his personal life, callous, manipulative, and that, to use a line from an old James Taylor song, his "goodbyes have been somewhat unrefined." While Americans want their leaders to be tough, they don't want them to be heartless.

Giuliani's only hope of being the GOP nominee or of winning the general election next year is to polish his image as both a hard-driving leader and a 9/11 hero. It's these two images of Rudy that cause even conservative Republicans to give him the benefit of their doubts.

Dissing audiences by accepting phone calls during speeches is unacceptable to voters of any persuasion. It makes the candidate look flaky.

And flagging his wife, who is such a controversial figure among some, by taking her call from the rostrum during a speech, doesn't advance Giuliani's cause in the least.

Giuliani deserves credit for deciding to speak to the NRA gathering. It was a courageous thing to do.

But the Mayor had better resolve to turn off his phone for future events before he turns off all sorts of folks.

UPDATE: Remember when Giuliani was inaugurated as mayor of New York? Here is a clip. And here's Chris Farley's Saturday Night Live send-up:

NYT: Giuliani Will Favor Abortion Rights

This is surprising?

I agree with Chris Matthews when he says--as he did on his Tuesday evening show--that the idea that pro-life voters are just discovering that Rudy Giuliani is pro-choice is absurd. (I also agree with Matthews that this idea reflects the media elite's disdain of the intelligence of conservatives generally and of pro-lifers specifically.)

These voters have known that Giuliani is pro-choice all along and many have supported him anyway. That's because most of them aren't single issue voters and because there are gradations of opinion within the pro-life camp, just as there are among other categories of voters.

This shouldn't shock anybody: Even Sam Brownback, arguably the most pro-life and the one most connected to the Religious Right in the current GOP presidential field, said last week that he would support a pro-choice Republican nominee for President.

I used to be among those who thought that Giuliani had no chance of securing his party's nomination in 2008. He still may not get it. He may be too liberal on a variety of issues to finally win people over. But Giuliani apparently scores high in the minds of GOP voters on other areas they deem important, such as toughness and leadership.

As opposed to Mitt Romney, who is perceived as a flip-flopper on social issues like abortion and gay marriage, Giuliani gets points from social conservatives who consider him an honest person of principle.

The strange thing to ponder though, is how many conservatives are willing to overlook Giuliani's liberal views on social issues, but can't stomach the Senator with one of the most conservative voting records in recent decades, John McCain. The focus of conservative ire seems to be that McCain voted against the Bush tax cuts and is the co-author of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance laws. Are conservatives--even those from the Religious Right--saying that taxes and campaign finance are bigger deal-breakers than abortion and gay marriage? That's an interesting thought...and I don't think we yet know the answer.

(See Ann Althouse for a discussion.)

[THANK YOU TO: Brian at Columbuser.com for linking to this post.]

[This piece has been cross-posted at RedBlueChristian.com.]

The Mystery of Rudy Giuliani...Solved? And the Non-Mystery of Mitt Romney

Rudy Giuliani has been confounding people--including me--by continuing to score well among conservative evangelical Republicans, many of whom appear willing to support his candidacy for the 2008 GOP presidential nomination. Rudy is the frontrunner in spite of favoring gay marriage, gun control, and public funding of abortion.

There are many ways to explain these mysteries.

In the case of gay marriage, Giuliani's position is more in tune with the Barry Goldwater-Gerald Ford tradition of conservatism. The traditional conservative understanding of federalism was that the federal government had no business regulating the bedrooms of consenting adults. It further saw that traditional marriage, a rite of the Church, could not be threatened by any covenant established by the state, whose interest in marital relationships was (and is) threefold:

• the control of sexually transmitted disease;
• the joint ownership of property and its disposition in case of divorce; and
• the care and custodianship of children, whether the relationship continues or ends in divorce.
  

If some conservatives find Giuliani's position on gun control objectionable--and not all do, their apprehensions will be somewhat blunted by his apparently strong anticrime record while serving as New York mayor.

Abortion is a tougher one for conservatives, even some secular conservatives, to swallow.

But I think that Giuliani is even winning points and support from conservatives who intensely disagree with him on this trifecta of issues. Why? Because he isn't changing his position simply to make himself acceptable to some wings of his party. He seems to basically be saying, "I'm a fiscal conservative who'll fight terrorism. I also believe in strict constuctionist interpretations of the Constitution. Yeah, we disagree on other issues. I'm still the same guy today I was yesterday and I won't try to pull the wool over your eyes, pretending that I've had a road-to-Damascus experience when it comes to gay marriage, gun control, or abortion. But, there's a lot more that unites us than divides us."

My guess is that Giuliani is appealing to conservatives because of his refusal to flip flop on the issues.

Conversely, Mitt Romney appears to be facing all sorts of problems because he looks so much like a flip-flopper:










And notice the humor some clever Fox News Channel producer was showing here...



[Also see here. By the way, I'm not a Rudy Giuliani fan. I don't do endorsements, just observations.]

One can argue that, well, kind of, that, I think it can be said, that Rudy Giuliani...

is less than articulate. Even if Ann Althouse's construction of the former New York mayor's comments on Hannity and Colmes' show is right and he uses phrases like "kind of" to keep from appearing to be an egomaniac, he does ramble a bit. See Althouse's transcription and comments.

Hmmm. Inarticulate? I hope that at least, he's clean.