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 capitalgains tax break for farmer cooperatives nationwide (Baum, 1998, pp 316320).

On the political face of it, the lineitem 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 th

. . .
mself; nor can Congress relinquish that power to the Executive Branch. The real power of the veto pen (in this writer's opinion) is found not only in the ability to cleave off lines of wasteful spending. Its very existence has a power as well. The dissenting opinion is summarized by the following. Justices Scalia, Breyer and O'Connor would have upheld the lineitem veto. Scalia said that there is not a dime's worth of difference between allowing the president to cancel a particular project, through the lineitem veto, and allowing him to spend money on a particular item at his discretion (Pear, R., 1998). Justice Scalia found no conflict with the line item veto law simply because he could find no person or suit with standing that could (then) challenge the President's action (Opinion of Scalia, No. 97C1374, 1998). 4. Importance of Public Opinion / Interest Groups Other than holding out the promise of lower taxes and greater government efficiency I can find almost no grass roots opinions (at the time) that strongly supported the passage or defeat of the LIVA. The two accept ions would be the National Taxpayers Union who were for the passage and implementation of the law (Statement of John E. Berthoud, . . ., 1998), an
. . .

Some common words found in the essay are:
Legal Questions, Veto Act, Houses Congress, Chadha Court, Article Constitution, LIVA Congress, York City, Presentment Clause, Constitution President, Breyer O'Connor, item veto, line item, line item veto, supreme court, lineitem veto, item veto act, veto act, supreme court united, court united, justices 17901991, 17901991 1993, beginnings justices, court united beginnings, united beginnings, united beginnings justices,
Approximate Word count = 2299
Approximate Pages = 9 (250 words per page)

More Essays on Discussion of Clinton v. State of New York