Line-item veto

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Please help improve this article or section by expanding it.
Further information might be found on the talk page or at requests for expansion.

The examples and perspective in this article or section may not represent a worldwide view of the subject.
Please improve this article or discuss the issue on the talk page.

In government, the line-item veto is the power of an executive to nullify or "cancel" specific provisions of a bill, usually budget appropriations, without vetoing the entire legislative package. The line-item vetoes are usually subject to the possibility of legislative override as are traditional vetoes.

This power is held by many state governors in the United States of America. As of 2005, all but seven states allow the line-item veto, namely Indiana, Maryland, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Rhode Island, and Vermont.^{[citation needed]}

Article 1, Section 7^[1] of the Confederate States Constitution of 1861 allowed the Confederate president the ability to "approve any appropriation and disapprove any other appropriation in the same bill," with such disapprovals returned to the houses of congress for reconsideration and potentially for override.

The President of the United States was briefly granted this power by the Line Item Veto Act of 1996, passed by Congress in order to control "pork barrel spending" that favors a particular region rather than the nation as a whole. The line-item veto was used 11 times to strike 82 items from the federal budget^[2] ^[3] by President Bill Clinton.

However, U.S. District Court Judge Thomas F. Hogan decided on February 12, 1998, that unilateral amendment or repeal of only parts of statutes violated the U.S. Constitution. This ruling was subsequently affirmed on June 25, 1998, by a 6-3 decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case Clinton v. City of New York.

A constitutional amendment to give the President line item veto power has been considered periodically since the Court ruled the 1996 Act unconstitutional.

[edit] Current Events

In 2006, members of the United States Congress raised concerns regarding President George W. Bush's use of signing statements, to indicate that he would not enforce provisions of laws that he signed. This has been viewed as effectively a line-item veto by the president, raising constitutional issues regarding the practice.^[4]

In his 2006 State of the Union address, President George W. Bush requested that Congress give him the line item veto authority.

On June 22, 2006, the United States House of Representatives passed a bill (H.R. 4890) that would call for a six-year line-item veto to cut down on the "pork barrel spending" associated with Congressional lawmaking. The bill stopped short of granting a full line-item veto like the one passed in the 1990s, and instead allows the President to send a bill back to Congress within 45 days for another vote to affirm rider bills. The bill passed 247-172 in the Republican-controlled House. The bill has yet to be considered in the Senate.^[5]

Supporters of the presidential line-item veto power contend that it would serve to cut down on frivolous government spending, and that media scrutiny would protect against abuse. Opponents argue that it would violate the separation of powers. See Clinton v. City of New York for additional material on current events.