15 years after its brief existence, line-item veto eludes presidents

President Bill Clinton exercises his 'line-item veto' authority on August 11, 1997.

/ STEPHEN JAFFE/AFP/Getty Images

(CBS News) On August 11, 1997, former President Bill Clinton became the first person in American history to sign a federal bill into law with a line-item veto, exercising a controversial - and fleeting - form of legislative power that remains a source of heated political debate 15 years later.

On the authority of a 1996 law, which enabled U.S. presidents to select portions of legislation to void before signing a bill into law, Clinton cut three measures from a tax and budget bill, declaring victory over Washington special interests in a signing ceremony for the law.

"From now on, presidents will be able to say 'no' to wasteful spending or tax loopholes, even as they say 'yes' to vital legislation," he said at the time. "Special interests will not be able to play the old game of slipping a provision into a massive bill in the hope that no one will notice."

Meant to serve as a tool for presidents to eliminate "pork-barrel" spending in bills without having to veto the legislation entirely, presidents have been coveting line-item veto power since before the civil war: Everyone from Ulysses S. Grant to Ronald Reagan entreated Congress to give them line-item veto authority, but to date, Clinton is the only one to have that wish granted. (Unless you count Jefferson Davis, who presided over the Confederate States of America during the Civil War, and also had line-item veto power.)

Despite its bipartisan passage, the 1996 Line Item Veto Act was met with immediate challenges. Unlike most congressional battles, debate surrounding this issue tends to divide less along party lines than Constitutional ideology.

As CBS News reported in 1997, many believed Congress' approval of a presidential line-item veto represented "an unconstitutional relinquishing of legislative power."

(Watch the report from the CBS News archives, at left.)

Sen. Robert Byrd, D-W.V., who was such a Constitutional stickler that he carried a copy of the document in his pocket, decried the law as a "malformed monstrosity" and joined five other lawmakers in challenging the law's constitutional merits in court.

That challenge was dismissed by the Supreme Court on a technicality, but the following attempt to knock down the line-item veto succeeded: On June 25, 1998, the Supreme Court deemed that "there is no provision in the Constitution that authorizes the president to enact, to amend or to repeal statutes."

"Those who favored the line-item veto said the decision means more wasteful spending," CBS News' Bob Schieffer reported at the time. "But those who hail the decision said this was not about spending, it was about power, and that the line-item veto gave the president more power than the Constitution intended."

(Watch Bob Schieffer's report in the CBS News archives video, at left.)

By that time, Clinton had used his veto power to strike 82 items in 11 bills.

"The decision is a defeat for all Americans," Clinton said in response to the decision. "It deprives the president of a valuable tool for eliminating waste in the federal budget and for enlivening the public debate over how to make the best use of public funds."

Supreme Court decision or no, presidents continue to fight for the authority they say can save the nation billions of dollars. (Clinton's first use of the line-item veto alone saved $625 million, as CBS News' Sharyl Attkisson reported at the time.)

Last February, in a rare moment of bipartisanship, the House of Representatives voted to give President Obama that power. Like most such attempts, however, the attempt was unsuccessful: The Senate never even brought it up for a vote.

[JDB103]

To have a line item veto by any President should not be allowed and every citizen in this country needs to fight against this possibility in the future. Those who are stating yes for this type of measure are not considering the large reaching issues.

When a Bill comes into play it is passed on by MAJORITY of Congress and Senate, not by one individual. When it comes before the President that ONE individual can either accept or reject and if rejected goes back around to appropriate legislative body to revamp and pass back through or can vote to override.

If a President has line item veto ability then that individual could abuse the system whereby a Democratic president could veto items added by Republicans or the opposite could be true whereby a Republican President could veto items added by Democrats. Our government was never meant to give ONE individual ultimate power. If an item must be passed by a vast majority within one body of government then one individual should NEVER have the power over the people to pick and choose what they themselves deem appropriate. Would you be willing to give one individual the power to determine who will be President of our Country? A line item veto is giving one person the power to choose based on their personal preference.

[JDB103]

To have a line item veto by any President should not be allowed and every citizen in this country needs to fight against this possibility in the future. Those who are stating yes for this type of measure are not considering the large reaching issues.

When a Bill comes into play it is passed on by MAJORITY of Congress and Senate, not by one individual. When it comes before the President that ONE individual can either accept or reject and if rejected goes back around to appropriate legislative body to revamp and pass back through or can vote to override.

If a President has line item veto ability then that individual could abuse the system whereby a Democratic president could veto items added by Republicans or the opposite could be true whereby a Republican President could veto items added by Democrats. Our government was never meant to give ONE individual ultimate power. If an item must be passed by a vast majority within one body of government then one individual should NEVER have the power over the people to pick and choose what they themselves deem appropriate. Would you be willing to give one individual the power to determine who will be President of our Country? A line item veto is giving one person the power to choose based on their personal preference.

[Ulgnud]

There is no President past, present, or future I would trust with that kind of power. If Congress wants a bill passed then stick to the merits of the bill itself and don't use it as a vehicle to pass weak legislation that wouldn't pass on it's own merit. Veto it until they either get it cleaned up, or pass it with an override vote.

[shortyfudpuc]

I think ALL presidents should have line item veto power. Period end of message. BOTH parties in the house and senate are guilty of adding SPECIAL INTEREST LEGISLATION to bills that are needed or popular to the American public.

BOTH republicans and democrats are GUILTY of this kind of political warfare/welfare. If I dont like like the oppositions bill a rider will be added that no one in their right political mind would pass. One of the parties want something passed and they will sponsor a bill "for the children" and slip in the JUNK they want. If anyone votes against it "they are harming our children". So SPECIAL INTEREST LEGISLATION gets passed because the elected officials do not want to seem like you do not care "about the children". Or jobs. Or the economy. Whatever is the popular buzz word of the moment.

Is it constitutional? Our constitution has been amended and changed over the years to evolve with the country. It is a living document which needs to be changed from time to time to allow this country to grow. The only ones that think the line item veto is bad are the ones who have the most to loose, SPECIAL INTEREST GROUPS.

[Ericwvb]

Although the principle behind the line item veto may be honorable, it does appear quite clearly an unconstitutional overreach by the executive into something clearly in the domain of the legislature.

Perhaps a constitutional amendment could be passed that would give the President the power to veto only spending line items, and allow either the Senate or the House to nullify the President's line item veto with, say, 60 votes in the Senate or 250 votes in the House within 10 days. If they succeed, the original bill passes; if they fail, the President's version passes.

If you really want to tackle the problem, then amend the constitution to publicly finance all congressional and executive campaigns so the source of the problem (legalized bribery) is removed.

[MickProPer]

The U.S. Constitution doesn't guarantee a "right" of privacy, but SCOTUS says it's there anyway. Look, as in every debate involving the interpretation of Constitutional rights, the primary question becomes: "What was their [the Framers] intent?" - as in ALL questions of statutory construction - legislative intent is the ultimate controlling factor. As regards the line-item veto, you need to ask the question of whether or not the Constitutional Framers could have ever conceived legislative measures like those that now regularly come before the Congress - hundreds (sometimes thousands) of pages long - filled with obscure references to other, equally-complex statutes and rules, and containing dozens of spending provisions which have nothing to do with the subject matter of the bill at hand, but are clearly designed to either reward a sponsor for their vote on the overall bill, or - in the worst scenarios - to act as a "poison pill"; designed to kill the whole measure by being so distasteful, that the President will veto the whole bill, rather than allow this single provision to become law. I suggest that the founding fathers would have been appalled by such measures - the average bill in their day encompassed a single page - complex measures might have required several pages, but there was never the sort of "issue stacking" and pork projects that we see today. Most of that comes from the contentious period just preceding and following the Civil War, and has just become exponentially worse in the 150 years since. I see no problem with allowing the President the ability to veto portions of a bill which detract from - or even defeat - the primary purpose of the bill. The Congress still retains the power to override a veto, if they feel that strongly about it. Our system of government is dependent upon a strong chief executive - look at how well we've done when we've had strong executives: Roosevelt (both of 'em), Kennedy, Reagan (give the devil his due), and of course, Clinton. By contrast, when we've had presidents who were administrators rather than leaders: Hoover, Eisenhower, Carter, Bush (both of 'em), we've either just gotten by, or even regressed. I say, give the president the ability to strip garbage away from legislative measures, and we'll all be better off! 'Nuff Said!

[Ulgnud]

The US Constitution does not authorize a line item veto. It gives the Executive branch too much power. Obey the US Constitution. No line item veto.

[RollotheNorman]

The US Constitution did not come down from Sinai on stone tablets. It can be amended.

[Ulgnud]

to rollofthe norman. Then you use the process within it to amend it as needed. This has been done numerous times. You just don't simply ignore it because it limits what you want to do.

[melbatom]

It is a shame that congress rejected this type of veto. It can help force compromise plus rid us of payment of political bills by certain congressman and senators.

[RealiteBites]

It'd be great to see Presidents given line-item veto power for any sorts of earmarks or riders that get tacked at the last minute that have nothing to do with the main purpose of the bill, that therefore weren't debated and crafted by a substantial majority of Congress.

Because that's an abuse of power that certain members of Congress have been indulging in that's gotten out of control and could use a check and balance.

I don't know if it'd be Constitutional to have it for the true legislation - just imagine if George Bush with his hyper-aggro tendencies and Cheney breathing down his neck had had that sort of power when Democrats were in charge of Congress. Blech ...

But

[Concerned2009]

Given our disfunctional Congress and the huge impact of special interests groups, not to mention our corrupt representatives, the Line Item Veto should be a part of the President's toolbox.