9+ Line Item Veto: AP Gov Definition & More

line item veto ap gov definition

9+ Line Item Veto: AP Gov Definition & More

A specific executive power allows a leader to nullify or cancel particular provisions of a bill without rejecting the entire legislative package. It grants the executive the authority to selectively eliminate spending items or tax measures from a budget or appropriations bill passed by the legislature. This is distinct from a general veto, which rejects an entire bill, forcing the legislature to reconsider the whole piece of legislation. For example, if a bill contains ten different spending provisions, this allows the executive to approve some of those provisions while vetoing others, effectively rewriting the bill to their preference.

The perceived benefit of this power lies in its potential to control government spending and eliminate wasteful or unnecessary projects embedded within larger appropriations bills. Proponents argue it serves as a tool to promote fiscal responsibility and reduce deficits by targeting specific areas of perceived overspending. Historically, its use has been a subject of debate, with concerns raised about the potential for the executive branch to usurp legislative authority and alter the intent of Congress. Its existence varies greatly across governmental levels and jurisdictions; some state governors possess it, while it was deemed unconstitutional for the U.S. President in a landmark Supreme Court case.

Read more

AP Gov: Line Item Veto Definition + Examples

line item veto definition ap gov

AP Gov: Line Item Veto Definition + Examples

A specific executive power allows a president or governor to nullify or cancel specific provisions of a bill, typically budget appropriations, without vetoing the entire legislative package. This authority contrasts sharply with the standard veto, which rejects an entire piece of legislation. For example, a chief executive might approve a budget bill but specifically reject a particular allocation for a highway project.

The perceived benefit of this selective negation is enhanced fiscal responsibility and control over government spending. Proponents argue that it enables executives to eliminate wasteful or unnecessary spending measures that may have been included through logrolling or other legislative maneuvering. Historically, it has been viewed as a tool to prevent deficit spending and earmarks, although its constitutionality at the federal level has been challenged. Its use at the state level varies depending on individual state constitutions and laws.

Read more