Line-Item Veto Unconstitutional, U.S. Judge Rules

A federal judge on Thursday struck down as unconstitutional a new law giving presidents--for the first time in history--power to veto individual parts of spending or tax bills approved by Congress.

The district court ruling, while certain to be appealed, was a setback both for President Clinton and congressional Republicans.

Clinton had sought the so-called line-item veto as an important weapon that a president should have against wasteful spending. Republicans had been trying for years to write the authority into law, and it finally passed Congress last year.

“We’re certainly disappointed,” White House spokesman Barry Toiv said. “We won’t have any further comment until the Department of Justice has had an opportunity to read the decision.”

U.S. District Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson issued the ruling in response to a legal challenge by Sen. Robert C. Byrd (D-W. Va.) and several other current and former members of Congress who opposed the legislation.

While Byrd and his fellow plaintiffs praised Jackson for his decision, senators who supported the measure called on Clinton to appeal the ruling.

“We have carefully crafted a law consistent with Supreme Court precedent,” said Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.). The line-item veto should pass judicial muster, he said, because the high court “has ruled that while no other branch of government can usurp Congress’ authority, the Congress itself can delegate that authority.”

McCain said he believes that the new law will ultimately be ruled constitutional.

Because of a fast-track provision written into the law, the case now is expected to go directly to the Supreme Court and may be heard this summer or fall, according to a Justice Department attorney.

In his decision, Jackson said the line-item veto would offset the balance of powers in the Constitution.

“Where the president signs a bill but then purports to cancel parts of it, he exceeds his constitutional authority and prevents both houses of Congress from participating in the exercise of law-making authority,” Jackson said in his ruling.

Constitutional scholars have argued both sides of this dispute, and it is far from clear how the Supreme Court would rule.

The line-item veto legislation was a rare tenet of the GOP’s “contract with America” campaign manifesto that Clinton supported in the last session of Congress.

Earlier efforts to pass a line-item veto, spearheaded by Republicans, had failed when Democrats controlled at least one house in Congress. The measure was finally approved because of growing bipartisan concern about the unbridled growth of federal spending and a commitment by both the president and GOP congressional leaders to bring the federal budget into balance.

Governors in 43 states have the line-item veto. And Clinton, who wielded such authority as governor of Arkansas, clearly was eager to use it as president.

Under the legislation, signed into law a year ago, a president could cut individual items from spending bills. Congress could restore those cuts by a two-thirds vote of both houses. Some experts said the law would not permit the president to make much of a dent in the federal budget deficit because it exempts most tax legislation and all entitlement programs, such as Medicare and Social Security, which make up two-thirds of federal spending. The law also includes a “lock box” feature, which provides that any spending cut under the procedure must go to deficit reduction.

Supporters of the measure believe that besides giving the executive branch specific power to strike pork-barrel spending from bills, it would deter efforts by lawmakers to quietly insert such funding provisions into budget bills. The line-item veto could draw increased public attention to special-interest spending.

Opponents of the authority, however, argued that it usurps the power over the government’s purse strings granted to the Congress by the Constitution.

In his ruling, Jackson addressed the belief expressed by Clinton and other supporters of the measure that it would be an efficient way to confront the problem of runaway federal spending.

“The framers [of the Constitution] ranked other values higher than efficiency,” he wrote, quoting from a previous Supreme Court ruling on a related issue. “With all the obvious flaws of delay, untidiness and potential for abuse, we have not yet found a better way to preserve freedom than by making the exercise of power subject to the carefully crafted restraints spelled out in the Constitution.”

Jackson stressed that the legislation attempted to make an unprecedented change in the U.S. system of government. “Never before has Congress attempted to give away the power to shape the content of a statute of the United States, as the [line-item veto] act purports to do.”

Striking the measure does not leave the president without tools to prevent excessive spending, Jackson asserted. “Various legislative alternatives remain available to give the president a more significant role in restraining government spending,” he wrote.

Plaintiffs in the case heaped praise on Jackson for standing up for the constitutional division of powers.

“There are many today in the Congress--there are some at least--who are concerned that the courts interfere too much with our procedures. This is a court defending the Constitution and the United States Congress in its responsibilities,” Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan (D-N.Y.) said on the Senate floor Thursday evening.

Byrd told his colleagues that he views the passage of the line-item veto as “one of the darkest moments of the history of the Republic.”

“I am very pleased with the court’s decision, which I believe to be a great victory for the American people,” he said.