I agree with Sabato's proposal of a presidential line-item veto. This would allow the President to veto only select parts of a bill--eliminating unnecessary attachments and thereby reducing wasteful spending. Members of Congress are unashamedly out for themselves—they represent their constituents, of course, but only so that they can secure a re-election. These congress people then, not-so-deviously, try to secure pork barrel spending—that is, pulling government money out for various localized projects that will bring money to that member's district. A great many of these projects, the majority of them in infrastructure, are unnecessary in all practical senses. A presidential line-item veto would provide for the removal of these superfluous earmarks, thus saving a great deal of money each year.
Those opposed to this proposal worry that a presidential line-item veto would blossom too much executive power, however, if a President had that capability, he would likely not have to use it very often, because Congress would be reluctant to rope unrelated legislation into a single bill and send it to the President, only to have him veto all their additions. Instead, Congress members would take better care with their planned earmarks and perhaps try to present them in shorter and more transparent bills, rather than tacking them onto a single, absurdly-lengthy (many bills exceed one thousand pages) bill. And of course, if Congress still wanted to pass something the President had vetoed, it could pass it with enough votes to override his veto.
[...] and the civilian and military options must be many (emphasis added)” (Sabato 2007, 154). A National Service Requirement would be beneficial both to the country and to the participants of the program. The years between the ages of eighteen and twenty-five are collectively recognized as a tender period of personal growth. It is in this time that a young person “discovers themselves”. Some young people, however, also become lost in this time. Coming out of either High School or College, they run into problems—problems with drugs, crime, or effective money-managing. [...]
[...] The thoughts of the founding fathers, too, come to mind. They, for concern of potential split-loyalties and perhaps even worry of Alexander Hamilton taking up the Presidency, made strict requirements for the ultimate executive office. In other words, no foreigners. The concern for split loyalties is a legitimate one. A person always, though perhaps subconsciously, retains a special connection with their country of origin. It is indeed possible that a foreigner who becomes President of the United States might run into conflicts; in terms of what is best for the United States and what would be ideal for their motherland. [...]
APA Style reference
For your bibliographyOnline reading
with our online readerContent validated
by our reading committee
