The Line-Item Veto: Understanding Its Constitutional Status

The line-item veto is a form of executive power that allows a president to reject specific provisions of a bill without vetoing the entire legislation. While this power is often granted to state governors, it is not explicitly authorized by the US Constitution for the president. The line-item veto has been a topic of debate in the United States for decades, with proponents arguing that it would allow the president to cut wasteful spending, while opponents counter that it would increase the power of the executive branch at the expense of the legislative branch. The US Supreme Court struck down the Line-Item Veto Act in 1998 as a violation of the Presentment Clause, and subsequent proposals for a line-item veto have faced similar constitutional challenges. Despite this, discussions surrounding the line-item veto continue to emerge, reflecting ongoing debates about presidential authority and fiscal responsibility.

Explore related products

VETO PRO PAC TECH-MCT Tool Bag (Original)

$199.95

Veto Pro Pac DP3 (Tool and Drill Pouch)

$89.95 $95

TECHOT-MC Veto Compact Open Top Tool Bag

$209.95

Veto Pro Pac Model XL Tool Bag

$225.33

Veto Pro Pac TECH OT-SC (Sub-Compact Open Top Electrician Tool Bag)

$179.95

Veto Tech LC Tech Large Tool Bag , Black

$230.67

The line-item veto is not explicitly authorized by the US Constitution for the president

The line-item veto is a form of executive power that allows the president to reject specific provisions of a bill without vetoing the entire legislation. While this power is held by many state governors, it is not explicitly authorized by the US Constitution for the president.

The concept of the line-item veto gained traction in the 1980s as a response to growing budgetary challenges. In 1996, the Line Item Veto Act was enacted under President Bill Clinton, with the aim of controlling federal spending and waste. However, this act faced legal challenges, culminating in a US Supreme Court ruling in 1998 that declared it unconstitutional by a 6-3 vote. The Court found that the act conflicted with the Presentment Clause of the Constitution, which outlines the legislative process for bills.

The Supreme Court's ruling interpreted the Constitution's silence on the line-item veto as "an express prohibition." This means that the Court viewed the absence of specific authorization for the line-item veto in the Constitution as a deliberate exclusion, indicating that it is prohibited. The ruling also affirmed that the line-item veto was equivalent to a unilateral amendment or repeal of only parts of statutes, which violated the Presentment Clause.

Opponents of the line-item veto argue that it would increase the power of the executive branch at the expense of the legislative branch. They contend that it would enable the president to veto specific projects or spending items added by members of Congress, bypassing the separation of powers and potentially punishing political opponents. Additionally, some argue that it would not effectively reduce wasteful spending and could even exacerbate the issue.

Despite the Supreme Court's ruling, discussions about the line-item veto have resurfaced in subsequent administrations, reflecting ongoing debates about presidential authority and fiscal responsibility. While some have proposed constitutional amendments to explicitly authorize the line-item veto for the president, others have suggested differently worded bills to address concerns about separation of powers and potential abuse of the veto power.

The US Supreme Court ruled the line-item veto unconstitutional in 1998

The Line Item Veto Act of 1996 was passed under President Bill Clinton to control federal spending and waste. However, the act faced legal challenges, and in 1998, the US Supreme Court ruled it unconstitutional by a 6-3 vote in Clinton v. City of New York. The Supreme Court found that the act violated the Presentment Clause of the US Constitution, which outlines the legislative process for bills.

The Supreme Court's decision in Clinton v. City of New York held that the Line Item Veto Act gave the President power over legislation unintended by the Constitution and thus violated the separation of powers between the two branches. The Act allowed the President to "cancel", or void, certain provisions of appropriations bills, which the Court interpreted as a unilateral amendment or repeal of parts of statutes. This interpretation was based on the fact that the Constitution is silent on the subject of such unilateral Presidential action, which was seen as equivalent to "an express prohibition".

The case was initially brought to the District Court by six members of Congress, including Republican Mark Hatfield, who challenged the Act's constitutionality. The District Court ruled for the plaintiffs, holding that the Act was unconstitutional because it allowed the President to unilaterally amend or repeal parts of duly enacted statutes by using line-item cancellations. The case was then directly appealed to the Supreme Court, which agreed with the lower court's decision.

Despite the Supreme Court's ruling in 1998, discussions surrounding the line-item veto have continued, with subsequent proposals emerging in later administrations. This reflects ongoing debates about presidential authority and fiscal responsibility. The line-item veto remains a significant topic within discussions of executive power and congressional authority.

The line-item veto is a form of executive power allowing a president to reject specific provisions of a bill

The line-item veto is a form of executive power that allows the president or another executive to reject specific provisions of a bill without vetoing the entire bill. While this power is held by many state governors in the US, it is not explicitly authorized by the US Constitution for the president. The line-item veto is also known as a partial veto.

In the US, the line-item veto has been sought by presidents including Ulysses S. Grant, Ronald Reagan, and Bill Clinton. In 1996, Congress passed the Line Item Veto Act, granting this power to President Clinton to control "pork barrel spending". However, in 1998, the US Supreme Court ruled that the act was unconstitutional, violating the Presentment Clause of the US Constitution. The Supreme Court agreed with Congress, which had argued that the line-item veto violated the constitutional balance and separation of powers.

Despite the Supreme Court ruling, discussions about the line-item veto have continued, with subsequent proposals emerging in later administrations. In 2006, a weaker version of the line-item veto was proposed but failed to find strong support in Congress. Some argued that the legislation would enable the president to intimidate individual members of Congress by targeting their projects. Others disagreed with the Supreme Court's interpretation, arguing that the Line Item Veto Act did not violate the literal wording of the Presentment Clause.

In other countries, the line-item veto is explicitly authorized by their constitutions. For example, Articles 137 and 138 of the Constitution of Uruguay allow the executive power to exercise total or partial vetoes of any bill by Parliament. Similarly, 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.

Explore related products

Veto Pro Pac Model XXL-F Tool Bag

$279.95

Veto Pro Pac OT-XL Tool Bag

$279.95

Veto Pro Pac Model LC Tool Bag

$214.95

The Power Of Veto Mug Acrylic Coffee Holder Black 11oz Golden Strike Out Symbol For Head Of Household

$22.99

Veto Pro Pac MB3 (Large Sized Zippered Diagnostic Bag)

$94.95

Veto Pro Pac TECH PAC (Black)

$339.95

The line-item veto would increase presidential power, but Congress argues it violates the constitutional balance

The line-item veto is a form of executive power that allows the president to reject specific provisions of a bill without vetoing the entire legislation. In the United States, while this power is held by many state governors, it is not explicitly authorized by the U.S. Constitution for the president.

The line-item veto has been sought by several presidents, including Ulysses S. Grant, Ronald Reagan, and Bill Clinton. In 1996, during Clinton's presidency, Congress passed the Line Item Veto Act to control "pork barrel spending". However, in 1998, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the act was unconstitutional, violating the Presentment Clause of the U.S. Constitution. The Court found that the line-item veto allowed the president to unilaterally amend or repeal parts of statutes, which only Congress has the power to do.

Despite the Supreme Court ruling, discussions about the line-item veto have continued, with subsequent proposals emerging in later administrations. In 2006, President George W. Bush asked Congress to enact legislation that would return the line-item veto power to the Executive Authority. The 2006 proposal was weaker than the 1996 version, but it still failed to gain strong support in Congress. Opponents of the line-item veto argue that it would increase presidential power at the expense of Congress, violating the constitutional balance and separation of powers. They also argue that it could be abused by the president to punish members of Congress who oppose their policies.

Proponents of the line-item veto, on the other hand, argue that it would allow the president to cut wasteful spending from the federal budget. They believe that it would increase fiscal responsibility and address budgetary challenges. While the line-item veto has been a recurring topic of debate, the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in 1998 remains a significant obstacle to its implementation at the presidential level.

The line-item veto is utilized by many state governors and the Mayor of Washington, D.C

The line-item veto is a form of executive power that allows the president or another executive to reject specific provisions of a bill without vetoing the entire legislation. While the U.S. Constitution does not explicitly authorise this power for the President, 44 out of 50 U.S. states give their governors some form of line-item veto power. The Mayor of Washington, D.C., also has this authority.

The line-item veto has been a topic of debate in the United States for many years. Several presidents, including Ulysses S. Grant, Ronald Reagan, and Bill Clinton, have sought to obtain this power. In 1996, during Clinton's presidency, Congress passed the Line Item Veto Act, granting the president the authority to control "pork barrel spending". However, in 1998, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the act was unconstitutional, violating the Presentment Clause of the U.S. Constitution. Despite this ruling, discussions about the line-item veto have continued, with subsequent proposals emerging in various administrations.

The line-item veto is utilised by many state governors in the United States, and it has been a part of their legislative process for several years. In some states, such as Wisconsin, the governor has a sweeping line-item veto power, allowing them to strike out words, numbers, or even entire sentences from appropriations bills. This has led to some controversial uses of the line-item veto, such as when Governor Scott Walker crossed out 116 words in a pension-related section of the budget bill in 2011.

The Mayor of Washington, D.C., also possesses the power of the line-item veto. This authority allows the mayor to have a direct impact on the city's budget and spending decisions. While there may be certain limitations or restrictions on how the mayor can exercise this power, it provides a level of flexibility and control over the city's finances.

While the line-item veto is utilised by many state governors and the Mayor of Washington, D.C., it is important to note that it does not have explicit constitutional authorisation for the President of the United States. The debate surrounding this power at the federal level continues, with proponents arguing for fiscal responsibility and opponents expressing concerns about the balance of power between the executive and legislative branches.

Frequently asked questions