4 Comments

1. In Clinton v. City of New York, after avoiding a congressional delegation to the present over the power of line-item veto in Raines v. Byrd (1997) by denying senators and representatives standing, the Court struck down the Line Item Veto Act of 1996. Line Item vetos describe the President’s ability to selectively cancel individual portions of bills; which violated the Presentment Clauses.

   Reply

2. Clinton v. City of New York
   524 U.S. 417 (1998)

   Facts: The Line Item Veto Act of 1996 gave the President the power to cancel specific provisions of appropriations bills after they were signed into law, allowing the President to veto particular items of spending without rejecting an entire bill. President Bill Clinton used the line-item veto to cancel certain provisions of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 that affected New York City and Idaho farmers. The City of New York challenged the constitutionality of the Line Item Veto Act, arguing that it violated the Presentment Clause of the Constitution.

   Question: Did the Line Item Veto Act violate the Presentment Clause by allowing the President to unilaterally amend or repeal parts of duly enacted legislation?

   Holding: In a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court held that the Line Item Veto Act was unconstitutional because it violated the Presentment Clause.

   Reasoning: The Court ruled that the Constitution requires all legislation to go through the process of bicameral passage and presentment to the President. By allowing the President to unilaterally cancel parts of a bill after it’s been signed into law, the Line Item Veto Act effectively gave the President the power to amend legislation, a power reserved exclusively for Congress. This violated the separation of powers, as the President’s role is to approve/veto entire bills, not to selectively rewrite them after they become law.

   Reply

3. I completely understand why the court ruled that the president did not have the power to selectively cancel or choose which parts of a bill he wanted to keep under the Line-Item Veto Act. If the president does not like any section of a bill so strongly that he does not want it to be passed, then they should simply deny it and allow the bill to go through the full process to possibly be approved by Congress if they choose to override the veto. If they get to pick and choose which parts of the bill they want to keep, then they are not approving the true bill that was passed by Congress.

   Reply

4. Blanca HenkleJun 2, 2019
   The President role is not to amend a bill, that is the power of the legislative branch.
   Reply
   Comments above copied from original document
   Deleted user
   Deleted userOct 12, 2017
   Governor’s hold this power in some states but if a president held this power it would give him power such as given in previous cases, where Congress gave the president it’s power.
   Reply
   Comments above copied from original document
   Deleted user
   Deleted userOct 12, 2017
   IV. Does the Line Item Veto Act’s cancellation procedures violate the Presentment Clause of the Constitution? In my opinion, it is not unconstitutional. Though I do believe the executive branch overstepped for they in a way took the role of the Legislative branch in this case.
   Reply
   Comments above copied from original document
   Deleted user
   Deleted userOct 12, 2017
   It makes sense to forbid the President from line-item vetoing items from a bill since this is similar to amending a bill, and it is the role of Congress to write legislation.
   Reply
   Comments above copied from original document
   James Betzelos
   James BetzelosOct 6, 2016
   3) Appellant argument

   The Line Item Veto Act does not violate any literal text of the Constitution, therefore, it is not unconstitutional.
   Also, the Act does not violate the Separation of Powers doctrine because it does not infringe on the authority of Congress.
   Reply
   Comments above copied from original document
   Deleted user
   Deleted userOct 6, 2016
   Holding: 6-3 decision. The Court stated that legislation passing both the Senate and House of Representatives should be approved or rejected by the President. The Court ruled that because the Act allowed the President to amend or repeal parts of enacted statutes by using line-item cancellations, it was a directly violating the Presentment Clause. (Article 1, Section 7)
   Reply
   Comments above copied from original document
   Demitri Kladis
   Demitri KladisOct 6, 2016
   (1) Facts: The Line Item Veto Act of 1996 enabled line item veto for the Federal Government (means they can veto certain parts of bills only pertaining to appropriations, limited tax benefits and direct spending). President Bill Clinton had two cancellations, one which was a provision in the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, and another which was the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997. A district court held the Act was unconstitutional, however the Supreme Court did grant certiorari.
   Reply
   Comments above copied from original document
   Deleted user
   Deleted userOct 6, 2016
   Clinton v. City of New York
   524 U.S. 417 (1998)

   Facts:
   The Line Item Veto was utilized by President Clinton to remove unfavorable parts of federal spending bills.

   Issue:
   Does the presidential usage of a Line Item Veto violate the Presentment Clause of Article I of the United States Constitution?

   Holding:
   In a 6-3 decision the court ruled yes.

   Opinion of the Court:
   Justice Stevens delivered the opinion of the court. The Court held that while the president was in his right to exercise the ability of a Line Item Veto, a bill that passes both houses of Congress must be approved entirely or rejected altogether. Being able to specifically remove certain parts of a Bill is akin to amending the laws.

   Concurring Opinions:
   Justice kennedy expressed that this type of veto power increased the power of the president and carried the risk of allowing him to favor specific governmental factions.

   Dissenting Opinions:
   Justices Scalia and O’Connor joined with Justice Stephen Breyer in dissenting, claiming that the act was not unconstitutional and was justified by powers that the president had exhibited in past times.
   Reply
   Comments above copied from original document
   Deleted user
   Deleted userOct 6, 2016
   (4) Question: Does the president’s ability to nullify individual sections of bills, under the line veto act, violate the presentment clause of Article I of the Constitution?
   Reply
   Comments above copied from original document
   Deleted user
   Deleted userOct 3, 2016
   2. From appellee’s Argument, (a) NYC/Several Health Organizations and (b) Snake River Potato Growers, inc.:

   (a) Alleged injury from Clinton’s line veto of the provisions of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 that eliminated certain liabilities

   (b) Alleged injury from Clinton’s line veto of the provisions of the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 that provided certain tax benefits to aid farmer’s cooperatives in purchasing potato processing facilities.
   Reply
   Comments above copied from original document

   Reply