‘Vetoing a Sham’

In response to your editorial “Vetoing a Sham” (Feb. 19) with quotes from columnist James J. Kilpatrick against a presidential line-item veto:

I agree that presidential power has grown excessively toward making an “Imperial Presidency” and the line-item veto, if not offset, would increase it abominably. However, the omnibus budget measures the Congress sends to the President make him pass some revolting items. A line-item veto has some merit.

It isn’t that a President actually vetoes enough measures to make a great difference; his greater power is in the threat of vetoing measures. That is the sword he holds over Congress. Members of Congress must always be conscious of the possibility of veto in all they do. They must be devious. They must try to get things through as riders on bills the President wants. Bills are not adopted on their merits. They are sneaked in. The two-thirds vote required to override a veto makes chaos in the government and defeats majority rule.

The very basis of democracy is that the majority shall rule. A majority is defined as a number more than half of a total. Two-thirds is not a majority but a means of defeating a majority.

The Constitution has provided that the will of the people must be expressed through its elected representatives in Congress. For the President to be able to override the will of the majority by his veto violates a basic principle of democracy.

If the veto could be overridden by a simple majority vote, it would be within the premise of democracy and Congress could reconsider the measure in the light of the presidential opinion. Then presidential power would be held more nearly to the will of the people.

I propose an offset of these powers. Give the President his long sought line-item veto, but give Congress a simple majority override of the veto. The people and democracy would gain by taking the deviousness out of both sides. Measures would have to be considered on their merits.

BERNARD E. WATERHOUSE

Pasadena