Discussion of Clinton v. State of New York
The Constitution gives the President three discrete functions following bicameral adoption of a bill in Congress. First, he may elect to sign it. Second, he may veto the bill and return it with a statement of his objections to the house of Congress in which the bill originated. Finally, he may do nothing, in which case the bill becomes law without his signature, unless the Pocket Veto Clause applies. The Constitution proscribes in great detail how separation of powers, discussion, and many other things can be accomplished. 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 laws. 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 th
Consider for example Prohibition. Its aim was to prevent people from making (some) personal decisions in regard to drinking alcohol. In truth, drinking only became illegal. Ultimately, LIVA's constitutionality must turn on whether the powers it grants to the President to cancel all or any portion of a spending or tax that has otherwise been duly enacted are consistent with the Constitution. A mere statute cannot grant to the President a power that is inconsistent with his role under the Presentment Clause and with his fundamental duty to ensure that the law is faithfully executed. The President cannot by statute be permitted to usurp Congress' role in legislative process any more than Congress can usurp executive functions. The majority opinion was handed down on February 12, 1998 by Thomas F. Hogan United States District Judge. The majority opinions were voiced along very specific lines; to wit, the Constitution carefully describes certain formal procedures that must be observed in the enactment of laws. The Line Item Veto Act impermissibly attempts to alter these constitutional requirements through mere legislative action. Because the Act violates Article I's "single, finely wrought and exhaustively considered, procedure," (Chadha, 462 U.S. at 951). Article I, section 7 of the Constitution describes dual requirements for the enactment of statutes: bicameral passage and presentment to the President.(See. U.S. Const. art. I, sec. 7, cl. The dissenting opinion is summarized by the following: Justices Scalia, Breyer and O'Connor would have upheld the line item veto. Scalia said that there is not a dime's worth of difference between allowing the president to cancel a particular project, through the line item 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). Because the Line Item Veto Act produced laws in violation of the requirement of bicameral passage, because it permitted the President unilaterally to repeal or amend duly enacted laws, and because it impermissibly attempts to evade the requirement that the President sign or reject a bill in Toto, the Act violates the requirements of Article I. For that reason alone, the Line Item Veto Act was judged unconstitutional. Furthermore, the President violated the requirements of Article I when he unilaterally canceled provisions of duly enacted statutes. Unilateral action by any single participant in the law making process is precisely what the Bicameralism and Presentment Clauses were designed to prevent. 3. Specific Arguments/Majority and Dissenting Furthermore, the Line Item Veto Act was judged unconstitutional because it impermissibly disrupted the balance of powers among the three branches of government. The separation of powers into three coordinate branches is central to the principles on which this country was founded. In their suit, the lawmakers said the line item veto "unconstitutionally expands" the president's power by allowing him to "cancel and thus repeal provisions of Federal law." The lawmakers urged the court to resolve the issue as quickly as possible, saying "there is a strong pub
Some common words found in the essay are:
Veto Act, Legal Questions, Houses Congress, Chadha Court, Article Constitution, LIVA Congress, York City, Veto Clause, Presentment Clause, Breyer O'Connor, line item, item veto, line item veto, veto act, item veto act, supreme court, beginnings justices 1790, duly enacted, 2 cl, 7 constitution, section 7, sec 2, united beginnings justices, cl 2, court united beginnings,
Approximate Word count = 2264
Approximate Pages = 9 (250 words per page double spaced)
|
