Pork-Barrel Barrier

Used with discretion, a president’s line-item veto is a valuable tool of government. If nothing else, the presence of this executive power discourages members of Congress from trying to bull through passage of the most egregious forms of pork-barrel spending.

Last year, using the veto for the first time, President Clinton selectively cut 82 items totaling about $2 billion from the federal budget. That’s not a lot in a budget of some $1.5 trillion, but Clinton knew his first use of the federal veto law would be in the spotlight and face a constitutional test.

The first stage of that test ended Thursday. A U.S. district judge in Washington ruled that the veto is an unconstitutional delegation of legislative authority to the executive. Now the matter will be on an expedited track for a final decision by the U.S. Supreme Court. This is no surprise. Everyone involved in the 1996 debate in Congress knew the law would be challenged.

Constitutionally, it would have been a simple matter if congressional backers had mustered the votes necessary to present a federal amendment to the states. That would have made the veto similar to the one enjoyed by California governors, which has the full authority of the state Constitution.

But there never was the required two-thirds vote in Congress for a federal amendment. Instead, Congress voted into law a cumbersome mechanism that enhances the executive’s ability to cancel individual spending items contained in bills that he already has signed into law. They labeled it a “line-item veto,” but it really is something of a hybrid veto.

U.S. District Judge Thomas Hogan declared Thursday that the veto law made the president an unconstitutional participant in the legislative process. “This limitation on the president has been clear since George Washington’s tenure,” Hogan said.

If the U.S. Supreme Court agrees with the lower court, supporters of the line-item veto must find another path to their goal. It’s possible that the only sure way is to amend the Constitution itself. Perhaps the line-item veto now has enough support that Congress would send such an amendment to the 50 states for ratification.