Discussion of Clinton v. State of New York
The Constitutionality of the Line Item veto was decided on a federal level. U.S. District Judge Thomas F. Hogan said the law, centering on its violation of Article 1, Section 7 of the Constitution, violates the Constitution's requirement that the president sign or veto bills in their entirety. Judge Hogan said that the line item veto bill also gave the President part of Congress' lawmaking role (Biskupic and Barr, 1998).
Judge Hogan pointed out two sets of challengers with
standing. In New York City, two hospital associations and other
related groups objected to Clinton's cancellation of a budget provision. This brought objections at the state and federal level. At the trial and appellate level The other case, Idaho potato growers brought suit, arising from the president's veto of a capital gains tax break for farmer cooperatives nationwide (Baum, 1998, pp 316 320).
On the political face of it, the line item veto would seem to be a battle between pork and beef. Officers of the government have sought for generations to find a way to avoid the larding up of legislation with pork or favoritism that doesn't seem to have much to do with the issues (whatever they be) at hand. The beef has always been, how to cut through side issues and get to the real meat of a situation. The ability to excise individual tax or spending items within legislation is a power that presidents have wanted for decades.
The Constitution proscribes in great detail how this is to accomplished, i.e., separation of powers, discussion, and so on. The reality of the situation is that the system doesn't work perfectly and that side issues in the form of federal spending or regional issues almost always seem to slow the process of legislation. While the president has some veto power under the Constitution, there is always a great deal of time taken up with reforming, reformatting and rewriting proposed la...