|
|
|
OUT OF LINE?
April 27, 1998The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer Transcript |
|---|
The Supreme Court heard constitutional arguments surrounding the line-item veto today. Since Congress granted the Executive Branch the power in 1996, President Clinton has used the line-item veto 82 times. The current challenge before the High Court was brought by New York City and a group of Idaho potato growers. After a background report, Jim Lehrer discusses the details with a reporter covering the case.
JIM LEHRER: And now for what happened before the Supreme Court today we go to Kenneth Jost, who covers legal issues for the CQ Researcher, Congressional Quarterly's weekly publication on current policy issues. Ken welcome. Now, the government went first, the Solicitor General. What was his basic argument as to why this was constitutional?
A RealAudio version of this segment is available.
NEWSHOUR LINKS:
April 27, 1998
A background report on the line-item veto.
August 11, 1997
President Clinton uses the line-item veto.
August 11, 1997
Paul Gigot and Tom Oliphant discuss the line-item veto's impact on politics.
Online Forum
Congressional Freshman debate the line-item veto.
Browse the NewsHour's coverage of the White House, Congress and legal issues.
OUTSIDE LINKS:
The White House.
U.S. Senate.
U.S. House of Representatives.
KENNETH JOST: Well, he insisted that in exercising the line item veto power the president was actually executing laws just as Congress had provided. Congress gave him the authority to cancel a spending provision or a tax break, and, in doing so, he was doing exactly what Congress intended.
The plaintiffs and the defendants argue the same point: the Constitution sets forth one way of passing a law.
JIM LEHRER: All right. Now, the plaintiffs who--who argued, first of all, for New York City, and what was their basic argument?
KENNETH JOST: Arguing for New York City was Charles Cooper, who is a Washington lawyer and a former Justice Department official during the Reagan administration. Arguing for the Idaho farmers was Louis Cohen, who is also a Washington lawyer. Both argued that the Constitution sets forth one way of passing a law. The House and Senate agree on what the law says. The president signs or vetoes in its entirety.
JIM LEHRER: Now, the justices--this went on for an hour, right, from start to finish? The justices questioned them. Give us a reading on what some of the justices asked and what their reactions were to these various arguments.
KENNETH JOST: Gen. Waxman, who's the Clinton administration's top Supreme Court advocate, went first and faced a barrage of very sharply critical questions from justices all across the ideological spectrum. At one point he was trying to minimize the impact of the law, and Chief Justice Rehnquist jumped in to say if we uphold the law here, it will apply to vast amounts of spending. There was another point where he was trying to insist that this was not--did not amount to a true veto, which everyone agreed would be unconstitutional. You can't give the president the authority to a true line item veto. And Justice--
Not a veto, a "cancel."
JIM LEHRER: Now, wait a minute. Wait. Why would it not be a veto? It's called something else, right?
KENNETH JOST: Waxman consistently used the word "cancel" to describe what the law says in its title as a line item veto. A veto is something you do before a law becomes enacted. Waxman's argument is the law has become enacted and the president executes it by deciding whether or not to cancel an individual part.
JIM LEHRER: So he signs the bill into law technically and then he goes back--
KENNETH JOST: Within five days.
JIM LEHRER: And scratches this. He scratches Idaho potatoes. He scratches New York, whatever he dos, but it's in the context that the law has already been enacted.
KENNETH JOST: The law has already become enacted. The lawyer Cohen said at one point that a president with--could do it all in one breath.
JIM LEHRER: If he did it the other way, though, they conceded that would be unconstitutional.
KENNETH JOST: That would be unconstitutional.
JIM LEHRER: In other words, if he took the piece of paper, vetoed one part and did it--
KENNETH JOST: Signed the rest.
JIM LEHRER: --then signed the rest--out of here.
KENNETH JOST: Can't do that. Can't do that. Everyone agrees that he can't do that.
JIM LEHRER: Okay. Is that a mere technicality?
KENNETH JOST: From one side of the case, yes, from the other side, no. Waxman insists that it's--that, as I said, carrying out the wishes of Congress, Congress said you have the authority to cancel one or more of these items according to certain conditions. The conditions are quite general. We'll reduce the public debt. That won't harm the national interest, and the other side said that those are just too general to constitute a delegation of power to the president.
Pointed questions from the judges.
KENNETH JOST: Well, Justice Ginsburg--when Waxman insisted this was not a veto--said, well, you can call it a different word but it's the same thing, it's gone, the provision in question is gone. Justice Breyer, who had raised the same line of questioning during the arguments last year, was particularly troubled by the idea that the president could pick and choose which taxpayers were subject to specific provisions. He said, you know, how can the president decide Mr. Smith, Mr. Jones, you owe taxes and eighteen other taxpayers don't owe taxes.
JIM LEHRER: So, did you come out of there, out of that argument today saying, oh, oh, these guys and won and those guys have lost, or give us a feel.
KENNETH JOST: Certainly most legal experts had expected--do expect that when the Supreme Court--if the Supreme Court reaches the merits of this issue, the line item veto will be struck down. That's been the expectation throughout the debate. The central question or at least the preliminary question going in to today's argument had been, will the court recognize that these two groups have standing, have the legal right, are the right plaintiffs at the right time to bring this case? The solicitor general said they're not; he said New York City hasn't lost any money yet, said the Snake River potato growers aren't the right people to bring this case because it's not their tax break. It would be a tax break that would be realized by the seller of the agricultural processing plant. I expected to hear a lot of questions about that standing issue. In fact, the Justices did not ask any questions on that to Solicitor General Waxman, and I thought their questions to the two lawyers for the plaintiffs were rather tentative.
JIM LEHRER: So that means maybe they're going to take it head on, rather than try to do it on--dismiss it--not dismiss it but judge it on the standing issue, rather than on the merits?
KENNETH JOST: It's always treacherous to make predictions by the Supreme Court, of course, but they did not seem especially troubled by the standing issue.
JIM LEHRER: Among legal experts is this seen as a major landmark kind of decision, or mostly a political thing in the final analysis?
"In terms of the constitutional allocation of powers it's a major issue."
KENNETH JOST: Oh, in terms of the constitutional allocation of powers it's a major issue. Presidents since Ulysses Grant have wanted to have this power. Ronald Reagan strongly asked for it from the Democratic-controlled Congress, which wouldn't give it to him. Now, the ironic result of the Republican-controlled Congress has bestowed it on a Democratic chief executive. In terms of resolving a constitutional argument about the balance of power between the president and Congress this is very important politically. And just in terms of the numbers, the dollars involved, it's less important. The president's--the items that the president has vetoed add up to only three or four hundred million dollars.
JIM LEHRER: When can a decision be expected?
KENNETH JOST: Last week of June probably.
JIM LEHRER: That's not far away. I mean, they've expedited this, have they not?
KENNETH JOST: They've expedited this, and the law that Congress passed specified that they speeded up--
JIM LEHRER: And when directly from the district court to the Supreme Court as well, didn't have to go through an appellate court.
KENNETH JOST: Bypassed the circuit court of appeals.
JIM LEHRER: So by the end of June. All right. Thank you very much, Ken.
KENNETH JOST: Thank you.
 |
        |
|
| Support the kind of journalism done by the NewsHour...Become a member of your local PBS station. | ||
| ||
| PBS Online Privacy Policy Copyright ©1996- MacNeil/Lehrer Productions. All Rights Reserved. | ||
| ||
