Chuck Baldwin, Founder and Minister of the Crossroad Baptist Church in Pensacola, FL, issued the following statement through his Communications Director, Mary Starrett, in an Aug. 11, 2008 email to ProCon.org:
"Absolutely not. Giving the President such authority would transfer to the Executive Branch significant control over the budget process, which is supposed to be predominately under the direction of the Legislative Branch." Aug. 11, 2008 Chuck Baldwin
John McCain, US Senator (R-AZ), stated in an Oct. 9, 2007 article titled "John McCain's Post-Debate Interview On CNBC" on his official candidate website:
"I was one of the prime sponsors of the line-item veto. It was declared unconstitutional because of the way it was written. It is not unconstitutional in the way we are writing it now. ... The fact is 43 governors have a line-item veto. We've got to have the line-item veto. Ronald Reagan wanted it, everybody wants it, it has got to be done, otherwise we're not going to eliminate these pork barrel projects. You've seen the smoke and mirrors that is going on right now on earmarks. Look, the line-item veto can be and should be constitutional and there's a way to phrase it and there's a way to do it ... we can write it so it's constitutional. It is a vital tool and ... I was one of the prime sponsors of the line item veto when we passed it." Oct. 9, 2007 John McCain
Cynthia McKinney, former US House Representative (D-GA), according to the Library of Congress: THOMAS website on June 22, 2006 voted No on "H.R.4890":
"Legislative Line Item Veto Act of 2006 - (Sec. 2) Amends the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 to authorize the President to propose the cancellation (line item veto) of any dollar amount of discretionary budget authority, item of direct spending, or targeted tax benefit within 45 days after its enactment." June 22, 2006 Cynthia McKinney
Mike Gravel, former US Senator (D-AK), at the June 3, 2007 Democratic Presidential Debate in Manchester, NH, stated:
"Vaughn [Ververs]: ...Democrats have vowed to weed out corruption in the federal government. A major source of corruption for both Democrats and Republicans are bribes in spending bills, sometimes referred to as earmarks. Would you vow, if elected president, to veto all bills containing earmarks?...
[Mike] Gravel: Totally, totally. It's abominable, and the only way you're going to get rid of it is to give the president the line-item veto. Of course, they're not going to give the president a line-item veto..." June 3, 2007 Mike Gravel
Mike Huckabee, former Governor of Arkansas, stated in an article titled "Issues: Taxes/Economy" on his official candidate website (accessed Feb. 26, 2008):
"I believe that our massive deficit is not due to Americans' being under-taxed, but due to the federal government's over-spending. Achieving and maintaining a balanced federal budget is an important and worthy goal necessary to our long-term economic well-being. To achieve a balanced federal budget, I believe the President should have the line-item veto."
ProCon.org emailed the Imperato campaign on Feb. 22, 2008 with this question. Mr. Imperato provided a response to this question and 26 others during a recorded 45-minute telephone interview with ProCon.org on Mar. 11, 2008. On Mar. 21, 2008 Mr. Imperato no longer met our eligibility criteria for inclusion on this site, and we stopped transcribing his verbal responses as of that date.
Steve Kubby, a Libertarian candidate and founder of the American Medical Marijuana Association, stated in a Feb. 22, 2008 email to ProCon.org:
"No. The line item veto isn't a silver bullet -- it's a substitute for taking responsibility and putting a stop to the nonsense. If Congress is unwilling or unable to discipline itself, I'll happily veto every bill that comes to my desk encrusted with pork earmarks, poison pills and other gimmicks. Presidents have plenty of power already. What they lack is political courage." Feb. 22, 2008 Steve Kubby
Frank McEnulty, President of Our Castle Homes, in a Feb. 28, 2008 email to ProCon.org, stated:
"Yes, it is the only way we will ever get back to balanced budgets and will make the process of developing bills more rational by taking out all the added extras that are piled on these days. Almost all bills passed these days are padded with dozens of extra items that have no business being on the bills they are being added onto. If the President had line item veto power, these optional extras would have to be submitted as independent bills and shown for what they truly are - pork and payoffs to special interest groups - making them a lot less likely to get passed and making our legislative process a great deal more rational." Feb. 28, 2008 Frank McEnulty
Ron Paul, US Representative (R-TX), stated in an Aug. 12, 1997 press release titled "Paul Calls Line-Item Veto Unconstitutional" on his US Congress website:
"The Constitution is very clear in defining how the legislative process is to work, and the line-item veto is clearly a violation of that process...
The direction this newly-created power takes us is 180-degrees off base; it is completely misguided and will further undermine the Constitution. The line-item veto consolidates too much power in the hands of the President, giving him unlimited power to re-craft legislation to his liking. The Constitution makes it clear that the president is only allowed to approve or disapprove entire pieces of legislation. The line-item veto opens the door for a president to do much more." Aug. 12, 1997 Ron Paul