Isabella Carter
The line-item veto, also known as the partial veto, is a type of veto power that allows a chief executive to reject specific provisions of a bill without vetoing the entire bill. While it exists at the state level in the US and in other countries such as Brazil and the Philippines, it has been deemed unconstitutional at the federal level in the US. The US Supreme Court ruled in 1998 that the Line Item Veto Act of 1996 violated the Presentment Clause of the US Constitution, which outlines the legislative process requiring any bill to be passed by both the Senate and the House before being presented to the president. Despite subsequent proposals for a federal line-item veto, such as the Legislative Line Item Veto Act of 2006, none have succeeded due to concerns about constitutionality and the balance of power between the executive and legislative branches.
| Characteristics | Values |
|---|---|
| Definition | A special form of veto power that authorises a chief executive to reject particular provisions of a bill without vetoing the entire bill |
| Other names | Partial veto, Legislative Line Item Veto |
| Who can use it? | Governors, presidents, chief executives |
| Who has used it? | Dilma Rousseff, Jefferson Davis, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, Scott Walker, Tony Evers |
| Who doesn't have it? | The President of the United States |
| Who decides? | The Supreme Court |
| Is it constitutional? | No, it violates the Presentment Clause of the United States Constitution |
| Is it always unconstitutional? | No, it depends on the country or state and their specific requirements for overriding a line-item veto |
| Is it being proposed? | Yes, in the US, the Legislative Line Item Veto Act of 2006 was approved by the House Budget Committee |
| What are the arguments for? | It would allow the president to cut wasteful spending |
| What are the arguments against? | It would increase the power of the executive branch of the government at the expense of the legislative branch |
Explore related products
What You'll Learn
- The line-item veto is a special form of veto power that allows the rejection of specific provisions of a bill without vetoing the entire bill
- The President of the United States does not have this power, as the Supreme Court ruled it unconstitutional
- Forty-four US states give their governors some form of line-item veto power
- The Legislative Line Item Veto Act of 2006 was approved by the House Budget Committee but failed to become law
- The Constitution's Presentment Clause outlines the basic legislative process, and a line-item veto would alter the balance of power between the government's branches
The line-item veto is a special form of veto power that allows the rejection of specific provisions of a bill without vetoing the entire bill
The line-item veto, also known as the partial veto, is a special form of veto power that allows the rejection of specific provisions of a bill without vetoing the entire bill. This means that a chief executive can reject particular provisions of a bill enacted by a legislature without vetoing the entire bill.
In the United States, presidents have repeatedly asked Congress for line-item veto power. In 1996, Congress passed the Line Item Veto Act, which was intended to control "pork barrel spending". However, in 1998, the Supreme Court ruled that the act was unconstitutional, as it violated the Presentment Clause of the United States Constitution. The Court found that the line-item veto was equivalent to a unilateral amendment or repeal of only parts of statutes, which only Congress has the power to do. Despite this ruling, some individual states in the US grant their governors some form of line-item veto power. For example, the governor of Wisconsin has used the line-item veto to reject spending measures.
In other countries, the line-item veto power exists in different forms. For example, the President of Brazil has the power of the line-item veto over all legislation, and any provisions vetoed are returned to the Brazilian congress and can be overridden by a majority vote. Similarly, Articles 137 and 138 of the Constitution of Uruguay allow the executive branch to exercise total or partial vetoes of any bill passed by Parliament.
Understanding Oil and Gas Waste in Texas
You may want to see also
The President of the United States does not have this power, as the Supreme Court ruled it unconstitutional
The line-item veto, also known as the partial veto, is a type of veto power that allows a chief executive to reject specific provisions of a bill without vetoing the entire bill. Several US presidents, including Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton, have sought to obtain this power. In 1996, Congress passed the Line Item Veto Act, which aimed to control "pork barrel spending". However, in 1998, the Supreme Court ruled that the Act was unconstitutional in a 6-3 decision in Clinton v. City of New York.
The Court's decision was based on the interpretation that the Line-Item Veto Act allowed the president to unilaterally amend or repeal parts of duly enacted laws, which violated the Presentment Clause of the United States Constitution. The Presentment Clause outlines a specific process for enacting laws passed by Congress, requiring that any bill must be passed by both the Senate and the House before being presented to the president for a signature. By using the line-item veto to delete individual measures, the president is effectively amending bills, a legislative power granted exclusively to Congress.
The Supreme Court also held that the line-item veto violated the separation of powers between the legislative, executive, and judicial branches of the federal government. Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, in his concurring opinion, wrote that the Act would "enhance the President's power to reward one group and punish another," and could potentially threaten individual liberty.
While the line-item veto exists at the state level, with 44 states granting their governors some form of this power, it has not been granted to the President of the United States due to the Supreme Court's ruling. There have been subsequent attempts to introduce a modified version of the line-item veto, such as the Legislative Line Item Veto Act of 2006, but these efforts have not gained sufficient support in Congress.
When Does Your Business Need a License?
You may want to see also
Forty-four US states give their governors some form of line-item veto power
The line-item veto, also known as the partial veto, is a special form of veto power that allows a chief executive to reject specific provisions of a bill without vetoing the entire bill. Forty-four US states—all except Indiana, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Rhode Island and Vermont—give their governors some form of line-item veto power. This power is often referred to as the "reduction veto" and can be used to remove appropriations to which the governor objects.
The history of the line-item veto in the United States dates back to before the American Civil War, with US Presidents including Ulysses S. Grant and Ronald Reagan seeking such powers. The Line Item Veto Act of 1996, intended to control "pork barrel spending", was passed by Congress and granted the President line-item veto power. However, in 1998, the US Supreme Court ruled the act to be unconstitutional in a 6-3 decision in Clinton v. City of New York, stating that it violated the Presentment Clause of the US Constitution.
Despite this setback, there have been subsequent attempts to grant the President line-item veto power. In 2006, the Legislative Line-Item Veto Act was introduced, but it failed to gain strong support in Congress. In 2012, the US House of Representatives passed a bill that would have granted the President a limited line-item veto, but it was not considered by the US Senate. While the President of the United States does not currently have line-item veto power, it is clear that the idea continues to resurface in Congress, indicating its enduring appeal to some lawmakers.
The Senate's Role in Shaping the Constitution
You may want to see also
Explore related products
The Legislative Line Item Veto Act of 2006 was approved by the House Budget Committee but failed to become law
The line-item veto, also known as the partial veto, is a special form of veto power that authorises a chief executive to reject specific provisions of a bill without vetoing the entire bill. In the United States, the President does not have this power, and it has been an ongoing debate as to whether the President should be granted this authority.
The Legislative Line Item Veto Act of 2006 was proposed in this context, with the primary objective of strengthening the rescission framework and enhancing accountability and transparency in taxpayer money spending. The Act aimed to address the complexities associated with implementing a line-item veto, including procedural, practical, and constitutional challenges. It was designed to empower the President to identify and reconsider questionable spending items in bills passed by Congress before the allocated funding was released.
The Act was approved by the House Budget Committee on June 14, 2006, with a 24-9 vote in its favour. It subsequently received approval from the full House on June 22. However, despite its progress in the House, the Act failed to become law due to opposition in the Senate. A similar version, titled the "Stop Over Spending Act of 2006", was introduced in the Senate by Senator Judd Gregg and approved by the Senate Budget Committee. Nonetheless, it did not secure approval from the full Senate, preventing the Legislative Line Item Veto Act from being enacted.
The 2006 proposal faced criticism from some senators, including Senator Robert C. Byrd, who characterised it as "an offensive slap at Congress". The opposition argued that the Act would enable the President to intimidate individual members of Congress by targeting projects of political opponents. Additionally, concerns were raised about the potential shift of Congress's "power of the purse" to the executive branch.
Understanding Treason: Limits of the Law
You may want to see also
The Constitution's Presentment Clause outlines the basic legislative process, and a line-item veto would alter the balance of power between the government's branches
The line-item veto, also known as the partial veto, is a special form of veto power that authorises a chief executive to reject specific provisions of a bill without vetoing the entire bill. This power is intended to control "pork barrel spending" and exists in various forms across different countries and states. For example, the President of Brazil has the power of the line-item veto over all legislation, as outlined in Article 84 of the Federal Constitution of 1988. Similarly, Article VI, Section 27 (2) of the Constitution of the Philippines grants the President the power to veto specific items in appropriation, revenue, or tariff bills without affecting the unvetoed items.
In the United States, the line-item veto has been a recurring topic of discussion and debate. Dating back to before the American Civil War, U.S. Presidents, including Ulysses S. Grant and Ronald Reagan, have sought line-item veto powers. In 1996, Congress passed the Line Item Veto Act, granting the President the power to control "pork barrel spending." However, in 1998, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the act was unconstitutional in Clinton v. City of New York. The Court affirmed that the line-item veto violated the Presentment Clause of the United States Constitution, as it was equivalent to a unilateral amendment or repeal of parts of statutes.
The Presentment Clause, outlined in Article I, Section 7 of the United States Constitution, establishes the basic legislative process. It requires that every bill passed by the House of Representatives and the Senate be presented to the President for approval. The President has the power to approve or veto the bill, and in the case of a veto, the bill is returned to Congress for reconsideration. If two-thirds of both Houses then approve the bill, it becomes a law despite the President's veto. This process ensures a balance of power between the legislative and executive branches of the government.
The introduction of a line-item veto would alter this balance of power. It would provide the executive branch with the ability to reject specific provisions within a bill, potentially impacting the overall intent and effectiveness of the legislation. While some scholars argue that the line-item veto is consistent with the original understanding of the Presentment Clause and serves as a check on legislative overreach, others disagree. Opponents of the line-item veto assert that it would enable the executive branch to intimidate individual members of Congress by targeting their projects or political opponents.
In conclusion, the debate surrounding the line-item veto in the United States centres on the interpretation of the Presentment Clause and the potential shift in the balance of power between the legislative and executive branches. While the line-item veto has been proposed as a tool to control spending and streamline the legislative process, its constitutionality remains a subject of discussion and has been challenged in court.
The Constitution: Adapting to Change
You may want to see also
Frequently asked questions
The line-item veto, also known as the partial veto, is a special form of veto power that allows a chief executive to reject specific provisions of a bill without vetoing the entire bill.
In the United States, the Supreme Court has ruled that the line-item veto is unconstitutional as it violates the Presentment Clause of the United States Constitution. However, in other countries like Brazil and the Philippines, the line-item veto is considered constitutional and is granted to the president or chief executive.
Proponents of the line-item veto argue that it would allow the president to cut wasteful spending and enhance their power to reward or punish specific groups or states.
Opponents of the line-item veto argue that it would increase the power of the executive branch at the expense of the legislative branch, potentially making wasteful spending worse. They also argue that it could be used to punish members of Congress who oppose the president's policies, bypassing the separation of powers.
