H.J.Res.10 proposes an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to provide certain line-item veto authority to the President. The issue centers on the granting of additional authority to the President to reduce federal spending as Congress seeks to balance the federal budget. According to the Congressional Research Service, every President but for two since the Civil War has stated support for the line-item veto. They claim that a president could reduce spending by billions every year.

H.J. Res. 10 proposes a very simple constitutional amendment which authorizes the President to reduce an appropriation in a bill, subject to congressional override.

Those in favor argue the Line Item Veto Constitutional Amendment seeks to grant the President the authority to veto specific provisions or expenditures in a spending bill without rejecting the entire bill. Proponents argue that this amendment could enhance fiscal discipline, streamline the legislative process, and curb wasteful spending. “H.J. Res. 10 presents us with a simple question: ‘Is it possible – just possible – that from time to time Congress has passed a spending bill or two that ought to have had greater scrutiny?’ The answer to this question might elude some members of the House, but I assure them it is self-evident to everybody else,” bill sponsor Tom McClintock (R-CA) said.

The line-item veto allows the President to eliminate unnecessary earmarks and pork-barrel projects, which often inflate federal spending without delivering significant public benefits. By enabling the President to remove specific wasteful expenditures, the amendment can lead to a more efficient allocation of resources and reduce overall government waste.

The line-item veto could help reduce budget deficits by allowing the President to veto specific items that contribute to excessive spending, thus promoting more disciplined fiscal policies. The President can also use the line-item veto to adjust spending more flexibly in response to economic conditions, aiding in fiscal management during times of financial stress.

Opponents argue that it will delegate too much authority to the president over the control of the budget. The issue is as old as the republic and indeed goes to one of the fundamental precepts of our constitutional form of government--the power of the purse.

As James Madison wrote in Federalist Paper No. 58: This power over the purse may, in fact, be regarded as the most complete and effectual weapon with which any constitution can arm the immediate representatives of the people, for obtaining a redress of every grievance, and for carrying into effect every just and salutary measure.

It is strongly believed that once Congress concedes this power to the executive branch, it will never be restored.

The line item veto would allow the President to unilaterally alter legislation passed by Congress, undermining the legislative branch's authority and disrupting the balance of powers intended by the Constitution. It could be used to modify or eliminate parts of legislation that reflect negotiated compromises in Congress, thus altering the law’s intended outcomes.

Granting the President the ability to veto specific line items might lead to overreach, where the executive branch gains disproportionate influence over the legislative process and policy outcomes. The line-item veto could be wielded to selectively target spending items based on political motivations or personal preferences rather than fiscal responsibility.

Should Congress pass H.J.Res.10, proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to provide certain line item veto authority to the President?