The American nation is a land that prides itself on service to its people. For years the United States has struggled between taking the right measures to provide a habitable country for its citizens and to uphold justice and fairness for all. However, over the years, some of the efforts that the nation has taken in maintaining a fair ground for all its inhabitants sometimes have proven to achieve the opposite. In light of all the happenings surrounding the current constitution, Larry Sabato, therefore, published “ A More Perfect Constitution " in which he proposed a constitutional convention to predominantly refurbish the present law of the United States (Sabato, 2010) . Sabato argues that there have only been seven amendments to the constitution after the Bill of rights was introduced into the constitution 200 years ago, and thereby offers 23 proposals to overhaul the American constitution. One suggestion by Sabato centered on giving the president of the United States a line-item veto.
Among all the powerful weapons that the president can will, the line-item veto so far is the most powerful under the American constitution. The veto puts the president in the middle of the process of lawmaking and provides him or her with an equal balance with the Congress. In short, an executive who wills the veto is the most powerful in a Republican state and has the authority to decide on individual provisions in government spending or the passing of a bill without vetoing of the entire bill (Sabato, 2010) . However, the Congress has the authority to override the line-item veto. For a long time, presidents in the United States have been denied the power to have a line-item veto (the ability to not buy items that are unneeded) over and over again.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
One of the reasons why the line-item veto should be passed into laws and given to the president is that it provides the president with the power to cut wasteful spending from the federal budget, a factor that helps the nation to be fiscally responsible and therefore save millions that could have otherwise been lost in unnecessary expenditures. For instance, on April 9, 1996, the then president of the United States was allowed to hold the line-item Veto and therefore signed the Line Item Veto Act in the year 1996. This was after the line veto was championed by Senator Bob Dole of Kansas and John McCain of Arizona through the Congress who received support from various United States Democrats (Sabato, 2010) . The line item veto was after that put into use in 1997 where President Clinton used it to cut provision measures that centered on a tax bill and expansive spending in that year. Using the line item veto allowed President Clinton to cut on wasteful spending and to take charge of tax loopholes. As it turned out, after the Congress overrode thirty-eight line-item vetoes that President Clinton proposed, the Congressional Budget Office on America realized that forty-four of the line-item vetoes that Clinton passed saved the nation approximately 2 billion dollars.
Consequently, the line-item veto is a powerful tool that will allow the president to prevent the abuse of earmarks by the United States Congress. More often than not, the United States Congress continuously takes the power that they uphold to exploit earmarking. In many occasions, party leaders in Congress houses use the offer of pork and in some cases threats to withhold earmarking predominantly to enforce discipline within parties (Sabato, 2010) . In such cases, houses in the Congress exploit other party leaders to obtain earmarks in return for supporting them in attaining various pieces of legislation that are unwarranted for. This action on the part of Congress party leaders is one that should not be allowed to occur in the nation as it shows that legislators are willing to put parties above the American society. These legislators therefore predominantly vote in favor of lousy legislation for their gains without considering the implications of their decisions to the nation. Thus, a line-item veto should be given to the president, as this is the only way in which matters such as the abuse of earmarks can be remedied (Sabato, 2010) . As a president to the United States, one should always be accountable for all citizens in the nations as opposed to few individual representatives and still can stand up to interest groups who are there to thwart the country.
However, those who argue against the passing of the line-item veto into laws state that it would allow for a continuation of a trend in the government in which power of the executive branch of the government was gradually increased without considerations to the legislative branch. By providing the president with the line-item veto, power within the U.S. Constitution will be upset significantly (Sabato, 2010) . Separating powers within the government will allow the Congress to attain the power of the purse enabling them to work as checks on the executive. However, the line-item veto will grant the president the power of Unilateral legislative which will allow him or her to rewrite part of bills that have already been passed by the Congress (Sabato, 2010) . In the end, executives will be liable to receive more finance while legislators who have an understanding of the needs of continuants will receive less. If the powers allowed to the president are increased beyond what framers of the constitution envisioned, then the statute of the political liberty of the American citizens will be significantly compromised. As it turns out, events such as these will prove to the nation that they cannot trust the Congress to be the final arbiter of finances viable to the country.
Moreover, opponents to line-item veto further argue that since the Supreme Court has agreed that it is unconstitutional, it should therefore not be implemented. According to the United States Constitution, "Every order, Resolution or Vote to which the Concurrence of the Senate and House of Representatives may be necessary (except on a question of Adjournment) shall be presented to the President of the United States; and before the Same shall take Effect, shall be approved by him, or being disapproved by him, shall be re-passed by two-thirds of the Senate and House of Representatives, according to the Rules and Limitations prescribed in the Case of a Bill." As these opponents propose, according to this article, the line-item veto goes against the procedural requirements of the American constitution by upsetting the balance of power that was prescribed by the framers of the law (Sabato, 2010) . For instance, in the case between Clinton versus The City of New York 524 U.S. 417 of 1998, the Supreme Court upheld this ruling as stipulated in the constitution (Sabato, 2010) . In short, opponents to the line-item veto state that it is only the Congress that can pass laws. The president can only sign or veto laws but does not have the right to edit laws into forms that they find appealing to them. Presidents are only allowed to participate in constitutional amendments and to obtain ratification by three-quarter of states.
A line-item veto is a powerful tool that has been coveted by various presidents since the establishment of a democratic America. Although supporting the line-item veto often is taken as an excellent way to cut unnecessary spending within the government, sometimes it may go beyond the boundaries that are set by the constitution thereby indicating insignificant signs on attaining real reforms that are consequential in benefiting American citizens. However, when employed rightly, it can hugely impact the nation to achieve positive outcomes that the country has long wanted to attain.
References
Sabato, L. J. (2010). A More Perfect Constitution (1 ed.). New York: Walker & Company.
