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