The Line Item Veto Act of 1996 allowed the President to
"cancel", that is to void or legally nullify, certain provisions
of appropriations bills, and disallowed the use of funds from canceled
provisions for offsetting deficit spending in other areas.
The Line Item Veto Act was politically controversial. Six members of
Congress, sued to prevent use of the line-item veto.
The Trial Court found for the
Congressmen. The President appealed.
The US Supreme Court dismissed
the case.
The US Supreme Court found
that the Congressmen lacked standing and dismissed their suit.
Several other groups (including
the City of New York) filed suit in a second attempt to have the Act
declared unconstitutional.
The Trial Court ruled found
the Line Item Veto Act
unconstitutional. The President appealed.
Because the Line Item
Veto Act established an expedited
appeal process for challenges, the case was directly appealed from the
District Court to the Supreme Court.
The US Supreme Court affirmed.
The US Supreme Court found
that the Line Item Veto Act
violated Article I Section 7
of the Constitution.
The Line Item Veto Act allowed the President to unilaterally
amend or repeal parts of duly enacted statutes by using line-item
cancellations. That violated the Presentment Clause of the Constitution, which outlines a
specific practice for enacting a Statute.
The Court construed the
silence of the Constitution on the subject of such unilateral Presidential action as equivalent to "an
express prohibition."
The Court found that
Statutes may only be enacted "in accord with a single, finely
wrought and exhaustively considered, procedure", and that a bill
must be approved or rejected by the President in its entirety.
In a concurrence it was argued
that basically the President already has the equivalent of a line-item
veto, since the President already has the authority to not spend money on
a program he doesn't like. What's the difference?
In a dissent, it was argued
that the objective of the Line Item Veto Act was constitutionally proper and was consistent with powers that
the President has held in the past.
The Act, "does not
violate any specific textual constitutional command, nor does it violate
any implicit Separation of Powers principle."
This ruling is a companion to
the Nondelegation Doctrine. In
that doctrine, it was held that Congress does not have the authority to
give away its powers to make laws. Here, it appears that Congress is not
allowed to allow the Executive Branch to modify laws they make.
