Posted on 02/05/2006 7:26:56 AM PST by new yorker 77
President George W. Bush got a lot of applause during his State of the Union Address Jan. 31 when he urged Congress to "pass the line-item veto" as a way of reducing pork-barrel spending. Small problem with the idea: the Supreme Court declared the line-item veto flat-out unconstitutional in 1998. "Our duty is clear," proclaimed Justice John Paul Stevens in the 6-3 decision Clinton v. City of New York. Presidents may only sign or veto entire acts of Congress, the Court said, and can't pick and choose which parts they like. "There is no provision in the Constitution that authorizes the President to enact, to amend, or to repeal statutes," Stevens wrote. The law, passed by Congress in 1996, authorized presidents to "cancel" individual items of federal spending included in bills passed by Congress.
The lawyers who successfully argued against the line-item veto before the high court were surprised to hear President Bush resurrect the idea.
"I thought, 'there they go again,'" said Louis Cohen, senior counsel at WilmerHale, who represented Idaho potato growers affected by a line-item veto executed by President Bill Clinton. "I really think the idea is dead."
Charles Cooper of Cooper & Kirk in D.C. agrees. "I know he and all presidents long to have this power, and as a policy matter I think it's a great idea. But I don't think there's been any change" since the ruling. Cooper argued on behalf of New York City, which also lost funds because of a Clinton line-item veto.
So what was Bush thinking? Could he be hoping that with his nominees John Roberts Jr. and Samuel Alito Jr. safely confirmed -- both of whom were labeled as pro-executive power -- the new Supreme Court will look more favorably toward the increased powers the line-item veto gives a president? Not likely, since neither the math nor the ideology seem to support that theory.
It was an odd alliance that joined Stevens in striking down the line-item veto in 1998: then-Chief Justice William Rehnquist, and Justices Anthony Kennedy, David Souter, Clarence Thomas and Ruth Bader Ginsburg. In dissent were Justices Antonin Scalia, Sandra Day O'Connor and Stephen Breyer.
Since Alito replaced the dissenting O'Connor, if he supports the line-item veto he would not change the outcome. And even if Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. parts company with Rehnquist, his predecessor and mentor, it would still be a 5-4 vote against the veto if all other justices remain in place.
But apart from the head count, neither Cooper nor Cohen think it is certain that either Alito or Roberts, if given the chance, would embrace the line-item veto. "This is not an issue where there is a clear division between liberals and conservatives," says Cohen.
Cooper recalled that Alito was his deputy at the Office of Legal Counsel in the mid-1980s when Cooper "with trembling hands" gave Attorney General Edwin Meese III a 90-page opinion concluding that the line-item veto was unconstitutional. President Reagan had pushed hard for it, and Cooper said "this was not advice I was happy to give." But Meese and Reagan accepted it and did not press it. It was President Bill Clinton who revived the idea and won passage of the law from Congress in 1996.
Another reason it is questionable whether the Supreme Court would revisit the issue is the very fact of the 1998 precedent. The importance of precedent was the recurring theme of the Alito hearings. The 1998 ruling may not qualify as a super-precedent or a super-duper precedent, terms that were bandied about last month. And it is not old enough to be called a "venerable precedent," a term Alito used to describe New York Times v. Sullivan, the 1964 ruling that protects the press from ruinous libel suits. But it is a precedent without much wiggle room; the Court said if Congress really wants to enact a line-item veto, its only course is to pass a constitutional amendment. Sen. Elizabeth Dole, R-NC, tried to get the amendment ball rolling by introducing S.J. Res. 26 last year, but it has no co-sponsors.
In the years since the 1998 ruling, Cooper says some advocates have tried to figure out alternative, constitutional ways to accomplish the goal of a line-item veto by statute. "Maybe there is some technique out there that would pass muster, but I haven't seen it," he says.
Adds Cohen, "I would have thought that this would have been put off the national agenda for good. The Court has made it clear that he can't do that."
Go to Law.com for legal information and services on the web. Sign up today for a free subscription to the Law.com daily legal newswire.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright © 2006 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved.
Copyright © 2006 NLP IP Company. All rights reserved.
It seems like the line-item veto is one of the few issues that is neither liberal or conservative.
There is a way that Congress can make a presidential line item veto work. They can, in the official record, subdivide each line item of an appropriations bill into separate acts - HR06371-1, HR06371-2, etc., etc. and then have one vote on the lot of them.
An interesting solution, and one which might well stand up to the legal challenge. Which is why, of course, it would never see the light of day in Congress.
Or, they could just a pass a constitutional amendment. Imagine that!
Wow! Now that's two 'weird' groupings...
.
I don't want a line item veto. Best case it is in the hands of a good president. Worse case you have given a new tool to the Bill Clinton's of the world. You have to look at unintended consequences.
True, but congress can pass legislation, without getting approval from the states, whereas the state legislatures (2/3) must approve a constitutional amendment.
The proposed solution would only require a simple majority of the House and Senate. A Constitutional Amendment would require 2/3rds of both houses and 3/4ths the state legislatures. If Congress can't muster a majority it won't turn up a super majority.
It is, after all, still a veto. Which can be overridden.
As far as the probability of election of a latter-day Slick is concerned......I guess we'll just have to keep FReeping to watch for those bums. In ANY party.
The line-item veto passed the Senate 69-29 and the House 294-134 - more than enough to pass a constitutional amendment. You wouldn't dare suggest that our honorable Congress critters were merely grandstanding, would you?'
And why on earth would the States block a line-item veto amendment?
The problem I have with a line item veto is that a president can use it to eviscerate the party not his own.
That was the point where I couldn't stomach any more and had to switch to another channel.
Since WHEN has this boob been in favor of a line item veto?
Cripes, he's had a GOP controlled Congress for six years and hasn't bothered to use his veto even once.
What a stinking farce.
Is that a serious question? Who do you think benefits from PORK? State legislators don't care about the national budget or even national defense, but they sure care about building bridges to nowhere in their constituents' districts.
I don't know if they can pass several bills like that without unanimous consent.
Hmm.. Well, I can't say that's not a good point, but I would think that it'd be a difficult thing for legislators to oppose. The Senate and House didn't support them so heavily because they don't like pork, but because it was politically unviable to oppose them (and they expected the Supreme Court to strike it down).
Either way, can you think of anything it would hurt for the House and Senate to pass a line-item veto amendment and then we could see what the states do?
If Pres. Bush is serious about the line-item veto, and it's not just the typical empty SOTU rhetoric, then I expect him to push for an amendment. That's the only way to do it, and we already know he doesn't have any problem with the idea of amending the constitution. After all, he's called for at least two of them..
I knew line-item veto was a total sham when both chambers passed it by amendment level margins, then immediately appealed them to the Supreme Court, and then just shrugged rather than send an amendment to the States once it was struck down.
Yep, very weird grouping. I doubt it has ever existed for another case.
It seems to me that having only one vote in Congress is an indication that the legislation in question constitutes just a single bill.
If a President wishes to line out a single item in a bill, he need only inform both Houses of Congress of that fact, and then each House can pass a bill with the offending line ommitted, then the President can sign the modified bill.
The Constitution already contains the mechanism to accomplish exactly what people claim thay want. The reason that the Constitutional mechanism is not sufficient to them is BECAUSE both Houses of Congress would NOT approve the bill with the desired ommission.
That is why the line-item-veto is unConstitutional.
I would like to see a change to the congressional rules allowing for the President to submit redacted legislation to both houses for a straight up-down vote without it having to go through committees or other such nonsense. Just "Here's the bill--debate it and then either vote 2/3 of both houses to pass the original, 1/2+1 of both houses to pass my changed version, or else forget the whole thing."
You're pointing out exactly the point I was making. The power to do what you wish already exists and is vested in the Congress of the United States. They can exercise their power as they see fit. They do not have the ability to surrender that power, to the President or anyone else.
During discussion of the "nuclear option" for eliminating filibusters of judicial nominees, it was stated that the Senate could not change their rules except at the beginning of their session.
I pointed out that the Senate of the United States has an explicit power to make its own rules. That power is not limited to just the beginning of the Senate session. Their rule stating that the power is limited is unConstitutional and without any real effect. At any time a majority of Senators wish to change the Senate rules, they may do so.
Constitutional is as constitutional does. There is no constitutional basis for a line item veto.
If it is needed then amend the founding document. Hope and pray that the "conservative" justices will hold the constitutional line against all comers, liberal or otherwise.
The executive branch signs off on them. If it's bad law, VETO it.
George, that veto pen is somewhere in your desk, use the thing for once.
It is the peoples responsibility, not the president's job to hold our elected officials to control and limit what laws and regulations they pass, not the executive branch.
True, but absurd amounts of power have been delegated to regulatory agencies.
There are a number of things I'd like to see as constitutional amendments, but one that would be near the top of my list would be something to the effect of "Any delegation of legislative or rule-making authority shall be void upon the thirtieth day following the opening of the Congress following the one that passed it, unless reinstated by that new Congress."
In other words, basically an enforcement of the idea that a congress (batch of elected congresscritters) can limit its own authority, but such limitation shall not be binding upon future congresses. Defunding the EPA, NEA, or other such agency would not require 51+ or both houses plus presidential approval, but only 1/3 of either house with presidential approval or 50.0% of either house without.
It may seem that way only because most appropriation bills are always structured and voted on that way, but congress has from time to time held "single" votes (in each house) for the passing of more than one "bill" and when doing so, first voted one approval of a rule permitting the one vote for the package.
To meet constitutional muster (according to the latest SCOTUS ruling on it) appropriations bills would have to be subdivided, by each line item, as a set of bills - HR-06-671-1, HR-06-671-2, etc.. The chamber would then vote to accept the rule of voting the separate bills together and then vote once. That would permit the President to veto the separate bills/separate line items.
True, but congress can pass legislation, without getting approval from the states, whereas the state legislatures (2/3) must approve a constitutional amendment.
-------
It takes 2/3 of both houses of Congress and 3/4 of the state legislatures/ratification conventions to ratify a Constitutional amendment. The 2/3 is the number of state legislature required to convene a Constitutional Convention.
(Denny Crane: "I Don't Want To Socialize With A Pinko Liberal Democrat Commie. Say What You Like About Republicans. We Stick To Our Convictions. Even When We Know We're Dead Wrong.")
Fund one Department at a time.
L
I agree. Its Congress job to make the laws and the President's job to enforce them. If a line item veto is given to the President, it will endanger the Separation of powers. It is good to have a strong executive, but too much power leads to tyranny. Granting the President a line item veto will also give the President a heavy hand in negotiations with Congress. Congress would be afraid to say no to the President because the President could blackmail their pork barrel projects. That means that the President would become the Ultimate source of Patronage in Washington. For example, the President could say grant me more spending/authority or I will veto a project you want. If its a good law sign the whole thing, if its a bad law veto the whole thing.
Moot. Bush has never met a law or budget he didn't like.
sigh
We quickly forget how even the most humble man can be corrupted by power. History has proved that many times over
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.