ndmckinney|net

Although not by much.

Wired magazine as a story covering 30 years of Apple hardware. A neat little survey of some very innovative products, not to mention a few mistakes. 15 pages of Apple nostalgia.

George Will thinks the line-item veto is bad. I hate to agree with him on anything, but I think he’s right.

I’m not sure, however, he is making the right argument.

As far as history goes, he is probably correct on the “original intent” aspect argument against the line-item veto. Quoth George Washington (as quoted by Will) “I must approve all the parts of a bill, or reject it in toto.” When it comes to the budget, and again, Will is on to something, the executive has a little more discretion when it comes to deciding if to spend the money appropriated.

Where Will falls short is in his constitutional argument. Most notably, Will simply concludes that the Constitution does not permit the line-item veto, referring to the 1998 Supreme Court case Clinton v. New York, 524 U.S. 417 (1998). But this is a strict constructionist conclusion of the issue. The holding in Clinton was not that the Constitution forbids the line-item veto but rather is silent on the issue. As a result, the Court was simply unwilling to broadly read into the Presentment Clause the ability to have the line-item veto.

Incidentally, Justice Scalia, showing a variance in his belief that the United States has not changed since 1789, concurred in the dissenting opinion. The dissent, written by Justice Breyer, argued that because the Constitution is silent on the issue, and the Congress has the authority delegate its authority, there is not a conflict with the Presentment Clause.

I think that, while there is not a conflict with the Presentment Clause, there is a problem with the separation of powers. The Congress has the authority to delegate its authority, but it cannot delegate to the president non-executive power. Certainly it could make for a more efficient government, but the Framers were more concerned with appropriate representation than with efficiency. Indeed, if the current administration has shown us anything, its that too much power in the hands of the executive is a very dangerous concept, a point on which Will and I agree.

Will continues that the line-item veto would cause an increase in federal spending. Unfortunately, this argument is weakened when he includes it this with his constitutional argument. Whether the line-item veto is a good idea is a matter of policy, separate from the question of whether the line-item veto is constitutional. As I indicated above, the line-item veto in and of itself could make for a more efficient government; as I also indicated above, any increase in efficiency would be at the sacrifice of appropriate representation in the Congress.

Noble in principle, the line-item veto is not likely to make an appearance any time soon. I’m sure that at some point in the future the Congress will try to create the line-item veto once again. I’m also convinced that when that happens, some clever lawyer from the Solicitor General’s office will make a Constitutional argument that pleases the court. It certainly has happened before.

Go Patriots!

I almost forgot. Yesterday was the one-year anniversary of my domain, ndmckinney.net. It’s not the anniversary of this blog, but that’s another story (and another headline.)

The Bush Administration is proposing changes to impose stricter fuel economy standards to SUVs between 8,500 and 10,000 pounds.

Are you *expletive deleted* kidding me? Five tons? Who in the world needs a vehicle that big in the first place? For comparison, my Honda Accord weighs about 2500 pounds. My in-laws pickup truck weighs somewhere between 3,500 and 4,000 pounds. 10,000 pounds? To drive little Suzie and little Bobby to soccer practice (who am I kidding, little Suzie and little Bobby aren’t playing anything these days).

Let’s not forget the fact that the average consumer of these massive SUVs is probably the least qualified to operate it. Women who can barely see over the dashboard of a Ford Festiva should not be operating the largest general-use vehicle on the planet. Sure she and little Suzie are going to be safe in the event she hits someone on the road while applying her mascara, but what about the driver in that Festiva? Toast. Power mommy probably won’t notice that she’s been dragging the wreckage of that Ford until the lease on her Ford Leviathan is up, and the dealer charges her for an unauthorized modification to the vehicle.

I realize that all this is harsh, but I’m renewing my opposition to vehicles that weigh as much as the house at which they are parked. Click on the NPR link above. Look at the woman in the photo. She needs 10,000 pounds of vehicle because it’s the only one that will support her astronomical girth.