I Forbid ALL of it

Q: What is the “line-item veto” and why is it unconstitutional?

A: To understand what a “line-item” veto is, we should probably start with understanding what a “veto” is. According to Sidebar’s handy-dandy Black’s Law Dictionary (BLD), the word “veto” is a noun of Latin descent meaning, “I forbid.” The BLD goes on to explain that the word means, “ a power of one governmental branch to prohibit an action by another branch.” The line-item veto, then, means, “the executive’s power to veto some provision in a legislative bill without affecting other provisions.”

Let’s review the high school civics lesson, “How a Bill Becomes Law,” once again. Remember, a bill is introduced in either house, it is debated and crafted in committee and floor debates. Once it passes both houses, it is whisked up Pennsylvania Avenue to the Oval Office (or, in WV, downstairs to the Governor’s office) for the Executive’s signature. When the Executive receives the bill, he has a choice: sign it into law or veto it outright. What many Executives have wanted, but cannot have, is called the “line-item” veto.

Let’s take a recent bill as an example: the Iraq Spending Bill (ISB). The ISB has taken a variety of iterations and, clearly, the White House and the Democrat-led Congress are at odds with the spending priorities and timelines governing a less than popular fight in Iraq. The White House has made abundantly clear that the President will refuse to enact anything requiring “timelines” for the withdrawal of troops. Congress has, at least twice, sent a version of the ISB that has timelines connected to the funding of the troops. The President has, at least twice, vetoed such legislation.

The first ISB that traveled sixteen blocks down Pennsylvania Avenue carried a host of “riders,” or attachments, to the bill having little or no connection to the stated purpose of the piece of legislation. Most of these riders were pet projects that simply secured the positive vote of various undecided Legislators.

Had the President had the use of he “line-item” veto, he could have simply crossed through the riders and the timeline for troop withdrawal, and enacted the remaining funding bill. But, he could not because, in the case of Clinton v. City of New York, the Supreme Court of the United States has deemed such a practice unconstitutional.

SCOTUS reasoned that the “line-item” veto violated the “Presentment Clause” of the U.S. Constitution, which reads, “Every Bill which shall have passed [Congress], shall, before it becomes a Law, be presented to the President of the United States; If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections.” (Article I, Section 7, Clause 2.)

Essentially, SCOTUS said that the “line-item” veto would interject the Executive into the Legislative experience, upturning what one court has termed the, “finely wrought and exhaustively considered procedure.” The “line-item” veto would essentially bleed the distinct duties of the Legislature and the Executive, blurring what should be sharply different.

What would be the point of Legislative debate if a single person could simply strike through an entire portion of proposed law that he or she did not like? Such is simply anathema to the representative democracy in which we live.

________________

Copyright Jeremiah G. Dys 2007. May not be used absent express, written permission. Please contact the author for permission to reprint.