|
|
 |
OVER THE LINE?
Is the Line-Item Veto constitutional? May 5, 1998 |
|---|
Questions asked
in this forum:
Is the line-item veto that big a shift in power? What will be the impact of the Court's ruling? Is the veto giving the president more control over something he is held accountable for? Isn't the line-tem a half-step up from the regular veto authority? Will the line-item veto streamline government, or just backlog it even more?
NewsHour Backgrounders
April 27, 1998
Coverage of the oral arguments in the line-item veto case.
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.
The Supreme Court is now grappling with a fundamental constitutional question concerning the separation of power between the Congress and the White House. At issue is the line-item veto, a provision that allows the president to eliminate individual parts of spending bills without having to veto the entire legislation.
After years of Republican support for the line-item veto, the GOP used its new-found majorities in the House and Senate to pass the measure in 1996. They argued that the president can more effectively differentiate between budget items that are in the national interest and those that are the product of special interests. Although many Democrats opposed the veto power during the Reagan and Bush administrations, President Clinton signed the measure saying, "This law gives the president tools to cut wasteful spending, and, even more important, it empowers our citizens, for the exercise of this veto or even the possibility of its exercise will throw a spotlight of public scrutiny onto the darkest corners of the federal budget."
TEXT OF THE DISTRICT COURT DECISION:
"Although the Line Item Veto Act may have presented an innovative and effective manner in which to control runaway spending by Congress, the Framers held loftier values. [In a prior case] the Court recognized this tension between uncomplicated administration of government and the values honored in the Constitution:'The choices we discern as having been made in the Constitutional convention impose burdens on governmental processes that often seem clumsy, inefficient, even unworkable, but those hard choices were consciously made by men who had lived under a form of government that permitted arbitrary governmental acts to go unchecked. There is no support in the Constitution or decisions of this court for the proposition that the cumbersomeness and delays often encountered in complying with explicit Constitutional standards may be avoided, either by the Congress or by the President. With all the obvious flaws of delay, untidiness, and potential for abuse, we have not yet found a better way to preserve freedom than by making the exercise of power subject to the carefully crafted restraints spelled out in the Constitution.'
"Because the Line Item Veto impermissibly violates the central tenets of our system of government, it cannot stand.
"Therefore, because the Court finds that Plaintiffs have demonstrated the requisite injury to have standing and, furthermore, that the Line Item Veto Act violates the provisions of Article I, section 7 of the United States Constitution and the separation of powers doctrine, this Court declares that the Line Item Veto Act is unconstitutional. "
But the opponents of the line-item veto warned it will slant the balance of power down Pennsylvania Avenue to the president by giving the White House too much power over Congress’ power to appropriate money.
"Its passage will effectuate a tremendous gift of power from the legislative branch to the executive branch, and it will be used as a club to be held over the head of every member of the United States Senate and every member of the House of Representatives by power hungry presidents who will seek to impose their will over the legislative process to the detriment of the American people," Senator Robert Byrd (D-WV) said prior to the final vote.
Most opponents and supporters acknowledged that the issue would have to be decided by the courts. So when President Clinton used the authority to veto 82 individual projects in the past year, a court case was quickly brought by two groups whose funding had been impacted by the use of the line-item veto. On February 18, 1998, U.S. District Court Judge Thomas Hogan declared the line-item veto unconstitutional (See sidebar). The Justice Department appealed this decision and the Supreme Court heard oral arguments on the case April 27 (click for the NewHour’s coverage of the oral arguments). The Court is expected to issue an expedited ruling in June.
Is the line item veto constitutional? Even if it is technically constitutional, is it good policy? Will the veto shift power too much to the president or simply allow the president to trim "pork" out of the federal budget? Is this Congress not doing its job or a more logical way to legislate?
Your questions are answered by two experts in the field of constitutional law and the separation of powers. Alan Morrison is one of the founders, along with Ralph Nader, of Public Citizen's Litigation Group. He also served as the counsel of record for a "Friend of the Court" brief filed by three members of Congress in opposition to the line-item veto. John Cooney was a deputy counsel at the Office of Management and Budget from 1982-1987 and has analyzed the line-item veto on CourtTV.
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.
