Line-Item Veto Struck Down

(CBS)  The Supreme Court Thursday struck down as unconstitutional the line-item veto law that let the president cancel specific items in tax and spending measures.

The line-item veto lets the president cancel specific items in tax-and-spending measures. The 6-3 decision says the law violates the part of the Constitution that requires every bill to be presented to the president for his approval or veto.

President Clinton was the first president to exercise a line-item veto, an authority sought by nearly every president this century as a tool to limit pork-barrel spending. Congress voted in 1996 to give the president such authority, and Mr. Clinton used the veto 82 times last year.

A federal judge ruled the line-item veto unconstitutional in February, saying Congress could not delegate such authority to the president.

The line-item veto law is the only major provision of the 1994 House Republican "Contract with America" campaign manifesto that Mr. Clinton endorsed.

The law let the president sign a bill and within five days go back to reject specific spending items or tax breaks in it. Congress then could reinstate the item by passing a separate bill.

Opponents of the line-item veto argued that once a law is signed by the president, it can be changed only in the way prescribed by the Constitution for enacting a law - a congressional vote followed by the president's signature. Once the president has exercised a line-item veto, they contended, the final law would not be the same as the measure approved by Congress.

The Clinton administration contended a line-item veto would not actually repeal part of a law, but would be a presidential exercise of spending authority delegated by Congress.

Writing for the court, Justice John Paul Stevens cited the "profound importance" of the issue and almost reluctantly concluded that "the procedures authorized by the line-item veto act are not authorized by the Constitution."

"If there is to be a new procedure in which the president will play a different role in determining the text of what may become a law, such change must come not by legislation but through the amendment procedures set forth in Article V of the Constitution," Stevens said.